Religion, what's the point?

Saliph said:
Right, so we agree then, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

I prefer Hitch's phrase anyway: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Click to expand...

Just as we agree that "absence of evidence is not definitive evidence of absence". He'll still demand of you the same exact thing, and this semantics discussion will be but a detour to you inevitably admitting to not being able to disprove god.

All I'm saying, is that he should understand who the burden of proof lies with, instead of trying to force you into this admission page after page and then claim it as some sort of victory when it happens.
 
Moonwalker said:
Oh for the love of all that is Mushrikeen.

You're splitting hairs now over a literal meaning of a phrase. Obviously, evidence is a broader term than proof and what they really mean to say is that it's not definitive, conclusive evidence. Of course, it wouldn't have quite the same ring to it if you put those words in.
Click to expand...

The difference between evidence and proof is a very important distinction. It's not splitting hairs to draw attention to this, especially so in a topic whereby such destinations are of utmost importance.
 
But there is evidence that god is a social construct. The only thing atheists admit is that deists might have accidentally happened to conceive of an unmoved mover who created the universe. And that's not because there is anything reasonable to suggest this, but because the concept of the unmoved mover has been adapted to be unfalsifiable, which in turn makes the hypothesis entirely worthless and unscientific.
 
Abbsta said:
Not all zero are the same. For example 0.0 has a meaning in Chemistry but nothing in Maths. So this atitude towards 'zero' evidence cannot be applied here since it's not a physical entity we are dealing with.
Click to expand...

The notion of god is perhaps not a physical one, but the effects of god as reported in the holy texts are indeed physical.

If the sensational claims reported in the holy texts were accurate then there would exist an abundance of evidence to support them. We find none though; in fact, we instead find an abundance of evidence with which to refute these claims.
 
Moonwalker said:
Just as we agree that "absence of evidence is not definitive evidence of absence". He'll still demand of you the same exact thing, and this semantics discussion will be but a detour to you inevitably admitting to not being able to disprove god.

All I'm saying, is that he should understand who the burden of proof lies with, instead of trying to force you into this admission page after page and then claim it as some sort of victory when it happens.
Click to expand...

Providing absolute proof of the nonexistence of a godlike entity is as unimportant as it is impossible (more accurately: unimportant because it is impossible).

If Danny asks for such proof then more fool him. He's weird.

I'm concerned only with evidence of the compassionate god as a construct of human imagination, of which there is an abundance.

With such evidence we can reasonably discard the religious hypothesis of the existence of such a god; and frankly, that's all that matters.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
The notion of god is perhaps not a physical one, but the effects of god as reported in the holy texts are indeed physical.

If the sensational claims reported in the holy texts were accurate then there would exist an abundance of evidence to support them. We find none though; in fact, we instead find an abundance of evidence with which to refute these claims.
Click to expand...

Found none? hmm. Let me ask you this: how many do you need? This the real question. Some people only need one and some get 10 and still not enough.

Also, with respect, I don't think some on here know how to read.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Providing absolute proof of the nonexistence of a godlike entity is as unimportant as it is impossible (more accurately: unimportant because it is impossible).

If Danny asks for such proof then more fool him. He's weird.

I'm concerned only with evidence of the compassionate god as a construct of human imagination, of which there is an abundance.

With such evidence we can reasonably discard the religious hypothesis of the existence of such a god; and frankly, that's all that matters.
Click to expand...
As I've been saying.
 
Abbsta said:
Found none? hmm. Let me ask you this: how many do you need? This the real question. Some people only need one and some get 10 and still not enough.

Also, with respect, I don't think some on here know how to read.
Click to expand...

What evidence is there that god is anything but a creation of man?

What evidence is there to suggest that the sensational claims of the holy texts are accurate?

If you know of any then I'd love to hear it. We can present evidence all day long to the contrary of the above; if you could present any in support then that would really be interesting. If the devout are so keen on engaging science on its own terms then go ahead, present your evidence...
 
I'm just hoping that this weird exercise in futility, where I'm reading everything I've been saying in this thread as an apparent attempt to argue with me, will at least serve the purpose of clarifying some things for danny1982.
 
Moonwalker said:
We are not talking about probability theory though. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What was the probability of the existence of dinosaurs back when there was no archeological evidence or evidence of any kind to support it?
Click to expand...
What you are refering to is the main issue with Bayesian inference. Basically, Bayesian approach allows to assign probabilities to hyptheses based on the evidence collected so far. As new evidence appears the probabilities shift between the different hypotheses. The fundamental issue here is how to assign the prior probabilities meaning what is the initial probability of each hypothesis when we have no evidence. What is usually done is to assume maximum ignorance which means to use uniform prior. Each hypothesis has thus an equal initial probability and the presence or lack of evidence shifts the probabilities towards the correct hypothesis as we search for evidence.

As I've explained It's a complete a blind alley anyway. You're not the one who needs to prove anything.
Click to expand...

Yes obviously the burden of proof is on the one making the claims.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
What evidence is there that god is anything but a creation of man?

What evidence is there to suggest that the sensational claims of the holy texts are accurate?

If you know of any then I'd love to hear it. We can present evidence all day long to the contrary of the above; if you could present any in support then that would really be interesting. If the devout are so keen on engaging science on its own terms then go ahead, present your evidence...
Click to expand...
Science? not fair on you since we all agree that it's changing. So even if you like what I say today, this could change tomo. It's the approach of the reader that needs changing. It uses language not formulas.

For a start the Quran is non-linear ie. it's not like the Bilbe left-to Right. So, an idea could be presented somewhere in the middle only to find answer somewhere else. Why is it doing that? the answer is in the first word that was revealed: READ. It wants you to read it. You may also notice that it is 'self-aware'.. It asks questions about itself and therefore encourages you to read further.

The spiritual interaction is difficult to articulate beyond that it helps a great deal with matters of the heart such as a depression, heavy heartedness, repelling negative thoughts etc.

Anyway here is a taste of a scientific reference in a verse:
“We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (The Prophets: 30)

This is a bold and clear statement. But notice the type of question (other places it might say..think or see etc.) to whom is it addressed to? who would be able to verify such claim? and even if they did verify that about water, what's stopping them from believing?

The Quran perfected but simplified the Arabic language. It made sure that it's accessible to all. It begs to be read.

-----

"language is the house of being"
 
I wonder if Muslims are bothered that the Christian god continues to perform current miracles like curing Alzheimers (isn't that what Pope JP is supposed to have done) while their god has shut up shop after some early splitting the moon adventures in the fear that he may be robbing people of free choice by convincing them too easily. If it's the same god, he's rather partial to his Christian followers isn't he?
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Okay :nervous:

Well, I was expecting a little more than that. Perhaps somebody else can have a go?
Click to expand...

If you are relying on people to 'tell' you things is it that what we are running from? There is a book - read it if you care enough. But you don't just like that one verse states.
 
Abbsta said:
If you are relying on people to 'tell' you things is it that what we are running from? There is a book - read it if you care enough. But you don't just like that one verse states.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm not asking you to read the entire atheist back-catalogue. Can't we have a conversation person to person without you being all weird?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.