₦airaland Forum

sinequanon:
Example of what would "prove" that god exists?

something that's not ambiguous.
something undeniable. most likely an act of god himself or through a believer.
e. g the Christian god. in the old testament, he was extremely active. only a mad man would deny his existence. other gods are like this also, the Greek gods, Egyptian gods,... they were all extremely active according to their tales.

hopefulLandlord:
exactly but when people say the universe as we know it had a beginning they quickly conflate it as evidence of it being "created" whereas despite the beginning cosmologists talk about the universe can still be eternal.

having a beginning is not guarantee for being created.

eternal in that sense would mean it existed as raw material then. not in its current form. something or nothing could have acted on it and 'made' it into its current form. it still leaves a lot of room for assumptions.

Gggg102:
something that's not ambiguous.
something undeniable. most likely an act of god himself or through a believer.
e. g the Christian god. in the old testament, he was extremely active. only a mad man would deny his existence. other gods are like this also, the Greek gods, Egyptian gods,... they were all extremely active according to their tales.

That wouldn't pass for science. If you did a science experiment to prove the existence of an electron, for example, you'd have to be very precise. You'd have to measure its mass, energy, charge etc.

Please design and describe a specific experiment that tests for god. i.e pick one of your undeniable, unambiguous indicators and create a scientific experiment with it. I am curious.

Gggg102:
or it's atheism that is acting both as agnosticism and atheism at once.

Of course they are free to if they want to. But I just think atheists just go a step further to say all God assumptions a false because they have not been proven.

you say everyone does not know. and I agree.

Cool

1.do you agree that the theists who say there is god are making empty assumptions?

Yes

2. do you agree that atheists who say there is no god are making empty assumptions?

This is where u get it wrong. Atheists saying there is no go based on the fact that theists are making empty assumptions can't be wrong. Atheists reject nonsensical God idea... If theists don't keep on making assumptions that there is God, I am sure atheists will not bother if there is God or no God. Atheists are simply asking for prove of claims, and if there is non, the claim is dismissed... I think this is clear.

sinequanon:
That wouldn't pass for science. If you did a science experiment to prove the existence of an electron, for example, you'd have to be very precise. You'd have to measure its mass, energy, charge etc.

Please design and describe a specific experiment that tests for god. i.e pick one of your undeniable, unambiguous indicators and create a scientific experiment with it. I am curious.

if god broke the laws of science in presence of all. e.g a person walking on water unaided. an amputee regrowing limbs, realigning the stars to spell his name and preferred religion. causing all the presidential buildings in the world to levitate, just any impossible thing done under strict observation.

Gggg102:
if god broke the laws of science in presence of all. e.g a person walking on water unaided. an amputee regrowing limbs, realigning the stars to spell his name and preferred religion. causing all the presidential buildings in the world to levitate, just any impossible thing done under strict observation.

Overload, my friend, which is equally vague. All I need is a clear experiment. Not something that will morph and expand after each test.

Which one are you talking about, or is your experiment all of them? If it is all, have you included everything required for your test in your above post?

frank317:
Of course they are free to if they want to. But I just think atheists just go a step further to say all God assumptions a false because they have not been proven.


Cool


Yes



This is where u get it wrong. Atheists saying there is no go based on the fact that theists are making empty assumptions can't be wrong. Atheists reject nonsensical God idea... If theists don't keep on making assumptions that there is God, I am sure atheists will not bother if there is God or no God. Atheists are simply asking for prove of claims, and if there is non, the claim is dismissed... I think this is clear.

rejecting god is different from saying there is no god. saying there is no god is a statement of fact, and without proof it is baseless.
if ALL the claims made by ALL the theists are found to be empty and without evidence, it is still NOT a base to conclude that there is no god. the farthest you can go is to state that the existence of god is unlikely and you can disprove their evidences. but once you claim god does not exist, it is a different ball game entirely. once you claim god does not exist, you put yourself under the burden of proof to prove your claim and your proof cannot be the lack of evidence of god because absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

sinequanon:
Overload, my friend, which is equally vague. All I need is a clear experiment. Not something that will morph and expand after each test.

Which one are you talking about, or is your experiment all of them? If it is all, have you included everything required for your test in your above post?

lemme just put realigning the stars to spell his name and his preferred religion and what he wants from man.

Gggg102:
him saying there is no god means nothing other than there is no god.
saying there is no god implies that it has been proved that there is no god.

Based on claims made na... Are u saying theists should not reject none proven claims? When someone rejects a claim what language should he use to show he disagrees?

that none have been proven does not mean there is no god.
absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

So... Should then accept nonsensical unproven clams?

no one knows, so you can't claim it was created, neither can you claim it wasn't.

Therefore we should not dismiss nonsensical unproven claims?

you can't claim there is god, neither can you claim there is no god. dismissal does not equate falsehood.

God is supposedly a conscious being... If he exists we will not rely on assumptions... Until then all God claims are false based on no prove.

Gggg102:
lemme just put realigning the stars to spell his name and his preferred religion and what he wants from man.

Why are you prevaricating, lol. I don't want you to "just put" something, that you can later "adjust" or deny.

I want a reasonable example. That would state the name that would appear in the sky, the name of the religion, and the orders, and the language/languages they are written in.

I don't mind hypothetical data, but I don't want something that can shift dramatically. For example, evidence of "what he wants from man" can be rejected on the grounds that it is "only one sentence" and you can claim you were expecting a poem or essay. So, for that reason, I would like, at least, hypothetical data to work with.

frank317:
Based on claims made na... Are u saying theists should not reject none proven claims? When someone rejects a claim what language should he use to show he disagrees?


So... Should then accept nonsensical unproven clams?


Therefore we should not dismiss nonsensical unproven claims?



God is supposedly a conscious being... If he exists we will not rely on assumptions... Until then all God claims are false based on no prove.

I'm not saying you should accept unproven claims, I'm saying that rejecting them does not equate to falsehood.
you can reject them and they could still be right, so you don't have a base to say the claim is false. you can't say you don't know and at the same time say you know that it is false.

you can dismiss claims that god exists, but saying god does not exist is a different ball game.

saying god doesn't exist is an assertion of fact and burden of proof falls on the claimant to prove this claim. not just relying on absence of evidence.

hopefulLandlord:
I've had experiences which I thought was paranormal but explanations abound for them. like sleepwalking when I was young, being pressed down in my sleep aka sleep paralysis

If you are so inclined to believe in the supernatural there's no limit to what you can claim is supernatural

when I knew what sleep paralysis was I even wanted more sef (started laughing people blaming their village people)

sinequanon:
Why are you prevaricating, lol. I don't want you to "just put" something, that you can later "adjust" or deny.

I want a reasonable example. That would state the name that would appear in the sky, the name of the religion, and the orders, and the language/languages they are written in.

I don't mind hypothetical data, but I don't want something that can shift dramatically. For example, evidence of "what he wants from man" can be rejected on the grounds that it is "only one sentence" and you can claim you were expecting a poem or essay. So, for that reason, I would like, at least, hypothetical data to work with.

I am ...I created this universe and you all. this are my wishes for you to follow.... you should serve me this way....
written in all major languages.

realigning the stars alone is good evidence on its own. spelling out a message with them would be undeniable.

Gggg102:
I am ...I created this universe and you all. this are my wishes for you to follow.... you should serve me this way....
written in all major languages.

realigning the stars alone is good evidence on its own. spelling out a message with them would be undeniable.

Let me show you why you need to be precise.

An astrologer could have stepped forward and claimed that, yes, god has aligned the stars and written a message written in an ancient "major language" which too many of us have forgotten, and it says [consults chart..] "blah, blah, blah.." (ehm.. face north-east three times a day, call my name, cross your heart and declare yourself my humble servant.) In fact, the astronomer claims that all the really major languages of god have died out.. god still writes in them, but we have forgotten them..

Then you would start adjusting your experiment (shifting the goalposts) because you have not been precise enough. Then you'd probably try to blame me for exploiting the gaps in your experiment.

But, I am giving you the opportunity in advance to be more specific..

sinequanon:
Let me show you why you need to be precise.

An astrologer could have stepped forward and claimed that, yes, god has aligned the stars and written a message written in an ancient "major language" which too many of us have forgotten, and it says [consults chart..] "blah, blah, blah.." (ehm.. face north-east three times a day, call my name, cross your heart and declare yourself my humble servant.) In fact, the astronomer claims that all the really major languages of god have died out.. god still writes in them, but we have forgotten them..

Then you would start adjusting your experiment (shifting the goalposts) because you have not been precise enough. Then you'd probably try to blame me for exploiting the gaps in your experiment.

But, I am giving you the opportunity in advance to be more specific..

by major languages I mean: English, French, Spanish, Swahili, Chinese, Hausa,...
and there would be no need for astrologers to interpret anything. astronomers would just look at it and read it like they read books. it could even be visible in the night sky so that common people would read it also.

Gggg102:
by major languages I mean: English, French, Spanish, Swahili, Chinese, Hausa,...
and there would be no need for astrologers to interpret anything. astronomers would just look at it and read it like they read books. it could even be visible in the night sky so that common people would read it also.

Is that it? Is your experiment defined? Or are you going to add more later.

(Note: I am not asking anything that would not be required in a scientific experiment. You wouldn't be supposed/able to add extra rules and to reject results in a real scientific experiment.)

sinequanon:
Is that it? Is your experiment defined? Or are you going to add more later.

(Note: I am not asking anything that would not be required in a scientific experiment. You wouldn't be supposed/able to add extra rules and to reject results in a real scientific experiment.)

in recap,

god realigns the stars to give specific description of himself and specific information about what he wants in major languages that are understandable without middle men. this would be seen all over the world and would be recordable by anyone.
the message is written one language after another to ensure uniformity all over the world.

Gggg102:
in recap,

god realigns the stars to give specific description of himself and specific information about what he wants in major languages that are understandable without middle men. this would be seen all over the world and would be recordable by anyone.
the message is written one language after another to ensure uniformity all over the world.

It's OK, I am not trying to be obtuse. I just don't want LARGE gaps in the description.

So, say we predicted for September 1st, the position of thousands of stars in the sky, but when we look out that day, the stars are way out of position, and they spell out in all the languages you have specified, "THIS IS A MESSAGE FROM GOD TO MAN. I WANT YOU ALL TO BE GOOD, ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH AND TO END VIOLENCE." And the resolution of the letters is at least as good as the resolution of the words on a computer screen for anyone to read.

So, I am going with the spirit of what you are saying ( if you don't mind the pun).

But does it actually mean evidence of god?

sinequanon:
It's OK, I am not trying to be obtuse. I just don't want LARGE gaps in the description.

So, say we predicted for September 1st, the position of thousands of stars in the sky, but when we look out that day, the stars are way out of position, and they spell out in all the languages you have specified, "THIS IS A MESSAGE FROM GOD TO MAN. I WANT YOU ALL TO BE GOOD, ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH AND TO END VIOLENCE." And the resolution of the letters is at least as good as the resolution of the words on a computer screen for anyone to read.

So, I am going with the spirit of what you are saying ( if you don't mind the pun).

But does it actually mean evidence of god?

what else could it be?

Gggg102:
what else could it be?

You still sound as if you are hedging your bets!

Anyway, I hope we have settled the definition of the experiment and there won't be any significant adjustments to it.

All I think we have so far is an entity, somewhat more "powerful" than we expect.

Let's do a thought experiment...

A scientist discovers the language of a primitive tribe of people living in isolation in a forest. The scientist arranges for a fleet of fighter jets to fly over this isolated forest, blasting out a message in pink and green smoke that it is a message from god. The primitive people have never seen a bicycle before, let alone any powered technology like a fighter jet. Are they justified in thinking that the message is a message from god?

Gggg102:
I'm not saying you should accept unproven claims, I'm saying that rejecting them does not equate to falsehood.

What does it equate? On what basis am I even rejecting their assumption? Isn't it in the basis that no one knows how the world came to be? If I accept that no one knows what else should I do with false laughable assumptions with no prove from year to year?

you can reject them and they could still be right, so you don't have a base to say the claim is false. you can't say you don't know and at the same time say you know that it is false.

How can they be right when 1. No one knows how or what started the universe. 2. They are just assuming based on ignorance. 3. Their ideas are as laughable and ridiculous. 4. They have no prove just emotional appeal.
If we agree we don't know, why shoulnt I reject assumptions from someone as ignorant as I am?

you can dismiss claims that god exists, but saying god does not exist is a different ball game.

Dismissing their claims means rejecting it and calling it false. If I cannot reject and call it false, then I cannot dismiss it.

saying god doesn't exist is an assertion of fact and burden of proof falls on the claimant to prove this claim. not just relying on absence of evidence.

I am only saying God doesnt exist based on the false ignorant assumptions that were put up to me. Yes its an assertion of fact, and the fact that there is no prove of any God.
When man says there is God with no idea what God is... He is definitely wrong

sinequanon:
You still sound as if you are hedging your bets!

Anyway, I hope we have settled the definition of the experiment and there won't be any significant adjustments to it.

All I think we have so far is an entity, somewhat more "powerful" than we expect.

Let's do a thought experiment...

A scientist discovers the language of a primitive tribe of people living in isolation in a forest. The scientist arranges for a fleet of fighter jets to fly over this isolated forest, blasting out a message in pink and green smoke that it is a message from god. The primitive people have never seen a bicycle before, let alone any powered technology like a fighter jet. Are they justified in thinking that the message is a message from god?

they would be justified.
however, you can't compare blasting pink smoke to realigning stars. realigning stars is not possible.

frank317:
What does it equate? On what basis am I even rejecting their assumption? Isn't it in the basis that no one knows how the world came to be? If I accept that no one knows what else should I do with false laughable assumptions with no prove from year to year?


How can they be right when 1. No one knows how or what started the universe. 2. They are just assuming based on ignorance. 3. Their ideas are as laughable and ridiculous. 4. They have no prove just emotional appeal.
If we agree we don't know, why shoulnt I reject assumptions from someone as ignorant as I am?


Dismissing their claims means rejecting it and calling it false. If I cannot reject and call it false, then I cannot dismiss it.


I am only saying God doesnt exist based on the false ignorant assumptions that were put up to me. Yes its an assertion of fact, and the fact that there is no prove of any God.
When man says there is God with no idea what God is... He is definitely wrong

it equates to you rejecting their idea and nothing else. if you state that NO ONE knows, how do you make a statement of knowledge.
1. you claim no one knows.
2. you also say no god exists.

if NO ONE knows, then how did you know god does not exist?

argument from theists ignorance, is also argument from ignorance.

you say because they don't know therefore it doesn't exist. that is false. that they don't know does not mean it doesn't exist.

absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Gggg102:
it equates to you rejecting their idea and nothing else. if you state that NO ONE knows, how do you make a statement of knowledge.
1. you claim no one knows.
2. you also say no god exists.

if NO ONE knows, then how did you know god does not exist?

argument from theists ignorance, is also argument from ignorance.

U are deliberately ignoring my point just to repeat something I have already cleared. We should be past this by now my dear Gggg.
Atheists who say no God are only responding to theists who (we have accepted do not know how the world started) say there is God. Atheism is not concerned about how the world started... For me, it could be started by a rolling ball for all I care but I know we all do not know. Atheism arose because of false claims from theists all over the place. We are the voice of reason that is asking the right question... You say there is God who does blah blah blah, prove it! If they can't we conclude that they remain ignorant and reject their "there is God claim" bexause, as we know, no one knows.
Of course if there is God and he has not proven himself, it matters not if we believe or not and that's not the atheists business. Our business is that when someone claims there is God and can't prove it, he lies or he is wrong that there is God... And the fact is that based on the knowledge available to us, based on. Human effort, we have sensed no God... So the appropriate status quo should be, no God until one is found.

I am not repeating this explanation again.

you say because they don't know therefore it doesn't exist. that is false. that they don't know does not mean it doesn't exist.

absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

No I say because they don't know and can't prove their assumption, they are wrong. This is a valid conclusion I am sure. We are directly responding to theists and not concluding on the situation of the universe itself. We have no knowledge of that.
Recall when theists say there is God, they over blow it, call it names, pray to it, worship it, claim he loves and helps them, sacrifice to it... All these indicates they have formed a false God concept and we say this false God concept does not exist. Hence the statement no God.

If we already accept that no one knows how then can't I confidently dismiss false claims.
Again.. Atheists saying no God are responding DIRECTLY to theists who make false claim that their is God. If God exists and has not been found of thousands of years so far... We will continue saying no God as a counter to all false assumptions until he is found. We cannot not pretend a God no one has ever ever seen exists.

If u have a question pls ask, but I beg u, do not related the same absence of evidence blah blah blah... Its irritating.

frank317:
U are deliberately ignoring my point just to repeat something I have already cleared. We should be past this by now my dear Gggg.
Atheists who say no God are only responding to theists who (we have accepted do not know how the world started) say there is God. Atheism is not concerned about how the world started... For me, it could be started by a rolling ball for all I care but I know we all do not know. Atheism arose because of false claims from theists all over the place. We are the voice of reason that is asking the right question... You say there is God who does blah blah blah, prove it! If they can't we conclude that they remain ignorant and reject their "there is God claim" bexause, as we know, no one knows.
Of course if there is God and he has not proven himself, it matters not if we believe or not and that's not the atheists business. Our business is that when someone claims there is God and can't prove it, he lies or he is wrong that there is God... And the fact is that based on the knowledge available to us, based on. Human effort, we have sensed no God... So the appropriate status quo should be, no God until one is found.

I am not repeating this explanation again.


No I say because they don't know and can't prove their assumption, they are wrong. This is a valid conclusion I am sure. We are directly responding to theists and not concluding on the situation of the universe itself. We have no knowledge of that.
Recall when theists say there is God, they over blow it, call it names, pray to it, worship it, claim he loves and helps them, sacrifice to it... All these indicates they have formed a false God concept and we say this false God concept does not exist. Hence the statement no God.

If we already accept that no one knows how then can't I confidently dismiss false claims.
Again.. Atheists saying no God are responding DIRECTLY to theists who make false claim that their is God. If God exists and has not been found of thousands of years so far... We will continue saying no God as a counter to all false assumptions until he is found. We cannot not pretend a God no one has ever ever seen exists.

If u have a question pls ask, but I beg u, do not related the same absence of evidence blah blah blah... Its irritating.

then saying no god is misleading, because saying there is no god is conclusive, and I'm quite certain some use it conclusively.

saying that theists evidence prove nothing is enough. you can dismiss their claims based on the fact that they do not have evidence.

Gggg102:
then saying no god is misleading, because saying there is no god is conclusive, and I'm quite certain some use it conclusively.

How is it misleading? If someone tells u there is a monster in the cupboard and u open is and see not monster, will it be misleading to say there is no monster in the cupboard?
What is the right response to this claim?

saying that theists evidence prove nothing is enough. you can dismiss their claims based on the fact that they do not have evidence.

When u conclude it proves NOTHING haven't u indirectly concluded that they are false? If u accept they are false are u saying their is God? Oga there is no need being political about this... If someone lies that there is God and can't prove it and u dismiss it, reject it, say its not enough evidence.. U are automatically saying there is no God to the there is God claim...
Even if God exists he will not bite u for calling a spade a spade based on observation around u.

frank317:
How is it misleading? If someone tells u there is a monster in the cupboard and u open is and see not monster, will it be misleading to say there is no monster in the cupboard?
What is the right response to this claim?


When u conclude it proves NOTHING haven't u indirectly concluded that they are false? If u accept they are false are u saying their is God? Oga there is no need being political about this... If someone lies that there is God and can't prove it and u dismiss it, reject it, say its not enough evidence.. U are automatically saying there is no God to the there is God claim...
Even if God exists he will not bite u for calling a spade a spade based on observation around u.

if someone says there is a monster in the cupboard, and I open the cupboard and see no monster, I have proven that there is no monster in the cupboard. saying there is no monster in the cupboard is correct because I KNOW that there is no monster in the cupboard. my position is not that I DON'T KNOW, my position is that I KNOW.

if however, I can't check the cupboard, I won't be able to prove that no monster is in it, and my conclusion would be I DON'T KNOW. I cannot conclude that there is no monster in the cupboard because I can't prove it. I can only ask for evidence and examine them and dismiss them if the evidence is faulty. me dismissing did not mean there is no monster in the cupboard, me dismissing them means that the evidence supporting the claim is not convincing, so I remain in my I DON'T KNOW position.

you who say that your position is that you don't know, can't use a conclusive statement because a conclusive statement implies that you know.

if they prove nothing, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are false. it only means their evidence is false.
if I say that the proof of the earth being spherical is that grass is green, and you say my evidence is false, does it mean that the earth isn't spherical?

you are not automatically saying there is no god, you are automatically saying that they haven't been able to prove god and so their claim is just an assumption.
if you say that there is no god, you make a conclusive statement, you have moved from your I don't know position to an I know position.
you've moved from you don't know if god exists to you know god does not exist.
and once you are in a position of knowledge, burden of proof lies on you also.

Gggg102:
they would be justified.
however, you can't compare blasting pink smoke to realigning stars. realigning stars is not possible.

Let's not play games!

I am sure that you get the point!

The primitive folk would equally have thought that writing in the sky with pink smoke is "not possible".

And what if the, as yet undiscovered, nature of dark matter means that it IS possible to shift space around on a cosmic scale? General relativity has already shown that what we used to think of as "alignment" can actually curve in the presence of matter. There's already space contraction and time dilation in relativity and entanglement in quantum physics, without a model to explain their combinations. These things are today's "pink smoke".

However, there is nothing unusual in what you are saying. History and archaeology have recorded the tendency of mankind to worship what it cannot understand. Modern Western science, with all its flaws, is a move away from that.

It is all relative. I was once sitting on a train opposite a hippie. He picked a spider off the floor and dangled it in the air and addressed nobody in particular, "you, know", he said, "to him, we are god" (referring to the spider). That was years ago, and I still recall what he meant. Imagine a creepy-crawly that, for example, lives its life under four stones in some untouched woodland. It may think of its "universe", the woodland (if not just a few trees and rocks) as VAST. It knows nothing of the mountains, the deserts and the oceans, and maybe nothing of man and his world. All those things are at best vague shadows or imaginings in his distant vastness, much like our dark matter (a scientifically estimated 85 per cent of "OUR universe" ). Are we god because we can mow down the woodland or plant trees in a straight rows?

And, if you believe in evolution, humans were supposed to have evolved from unicellular organisms. What was our "universe" then?

What else has evolved out there? Just because our solar system seems isolated, like that creepy-crawly in a woodland, does not mean some other intelligence may not "pass by", much as we would through a woodland. It could be something we can't even see, consisting of dark matter, for example, and of "huge size" with an intelligence that makes aligning the stars like a quick game of marbles. That doesn't make it god. That only demonstrates the limit of our own human perceptions and abilities. In a vast universe, maybe we are just like creepy-crawlies living among a few rocks called the planets of the solar system.

sinequanon:
Let's not play games!

I am sure that you get the point!

The primitive folk would equally have thought that writing in the sky with pink smoke is "not possible".

And what if the, as yet undiscovered, nature of dark matter means that it IS possible to shift space around on a cosmic scale? General relativity has already shown that what we used to think of as "alignment" can actually curve in the presence of matter. There's already space contraction and time dilation in relativity and entanglement in quantum physics, without a model to explain their combinations. These things are today's "pink smoke".

However, there is nothing unusual in what you are saying. History and archaeology have recorded the tendency of mankind to worship what it cannot understand. Modern Western science, with all its flaws, is a move away from that.

It is all relative. I was once sitting on a train opposite a hippie. He picked a spider off the floor and dangled it in the air and addressed nobody in particular, "you, know", he said, "to him, we are god" (referring to the spider). That was years ago, and I still recall what he meant. Imagine a creepy-crawly that, for example, lives its life under four stones in some untouched woodland. It may think of its "universe", the woodland (if not just a few trees and rocks) as VAST. It knows nothing of the mountains, the deserts and the oceans, and maybe nothing of man and his world. All those things are at best vague shadows or imaginings in his distant vastness, much like our dark matter (a scientifically estimated 85 per cent of "OUR universe" ). Are we god because we can mow down the woodland or plant trees in a straight rows?

And, if you believe in evolution, humans were supposed to have evolved from unicellular organisms. What was our "universe" then?

What else has evolved out there? Just because our solar system seems isolated, like that creepy-crawly in a woodland, does not mean some other intelligence may not "pass by", much as we would through a woodland. It could be something we can't even see, consisting of dark matter, for example, and of "huge size" with an intelligence that makes aligning the stars like a quick game of marbles. That doesn't make it god. That only demonstrates the limit of our own human perceptions and abilities. In a vast universe, maybe we are just like creepy-crawlies living among a few rocks called the planets of the solar system.

I get the point. although I'm sure we are a bit knowledgeable about today's pink smoke that we could know when something that breaks universal laws happens.

Gggg102:
if someone says there is a monster in the cupboard, and I open the cupboard and see no monster, I have proven that there is no monster in the cupboard. saying there is no monster in the cupboard is correct because I KNOW that there is no monster in the cupboard. my position is not that I DON'T KNOW, my position is that I KNOW.

Fair

if however, I can't check the cupboard, I won't be able to prove that no monster is in it, and my conclusion would be I DON'T KNOW. I cannot conclude that there is no monster in the cupboard because I can't prove it. I can only ask for evidence and examine them and dismiss them if the evidence is faulty. me dismissing did not mean there is no monster in the cupboard, me dismissing them means that the evidence supporting the claim is not convincing, so I remain in my I DON'T KNOW position.

They assumption u are erroneously making here is that the person who said there was a monster had already looked into it before telling me there is a monster

Listen attentively:

If u have a cupboard in ur house and while at work u tell me that there is a monster in ur cupboard... I will ask for evidence and even if u cant prove it, I will still leave a chance that u might be telling the truth.
Buy if you tell me there is a cupboard in ur neighbours house and I ask... Have u been to his house? No. Did he tell u there is a monster? No. How does the monster look like? I don't know but I know must be handsome. How did u know that there is a monster that is handsome in ur neighbours cupboard Because my neigbour acts like he is scared of something.
Oga I will tell it to ur face that u are lying despite not checking (or despite my position being I don't know). Its called common sense.

you who say that your position is that you don't know, can't use a conclusive statement because a conclusive statement implies that you know.

I am not doing this again. But let me put this in quickly:
Where both know or both don't know... The observer can confidently arrive at the same position. Its simple. I am only confident because I know we both don't know.

if they prove nothing, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are false. it only means their evidence is false.
if I say that the proof of the earth being spherical is that grass is green, and you say my evidence is false, does it mean that the earth isn't spherical?

Why should anyone be making conclusive statement on false evidence? What kind of thinking is that?

you are not automatically saying there is no god, you are automatically saying that they haven't been able to prove god and so their claim is just an assumption.
if you say that there is no god, you make a conclusive statement, you have moved from your I don't know position to an I know position.
you've moved from you don't know if god exists to you know god does not exist.
and once you are in a position of knowledge, burden of proof lies on you also.

And why do u dismiss their evidence u are automatically saying what?

frank317:
Fair


They assumption u are erroneously making here is that the person who said there was a monster had already looked into it before telling me there is a monster

Listen attentively:

If u have a cupboard in ur house and while at work u tell me that there is a monster in ur cupboard... I will ask for evidence and even if u cant prove it, I will still leave a chance that u might be telling the truth.
Buy if you tell me there is a cupboard in ur neighbours house and I ask... Have u been to his house? No. Did he tell u there is a monster? No. How does the monster look like? I don't know but I know must be handsome. How did u know that there is a monster that is handsome in ur neighbours cupboard Because my neigbour acts like he is scared of something.
Oga I will tell it to ur face that u are lying despite not checking (or despite my position being I don't know). Its called common sense.


I am not doing this again. But let me put this in quickly:
Where both know or both don't know... The observer can confidently arrive at the same position. Its simple. I am only confident because I know we both don't know.


Why should anyone be making conclusive statement on false evidence? What kind of thinking is that?


And why do u dismiss their evidence u are automatically saying what?

even if the person hasn't looked into the cupboard, the person's claim is just an empty assumption. you can't say it is true or false except you know.

you can tell him that he is lying and his assumption could be true, telling that he is lying implies that you know what is in the neighbour's cupboard. it is more appropriate to tell him you don't believe him as he is making an empty assertion.

it is erroneous to make a conclusion on false evidence, it is also erroneous to make a conclusion based on no evidence.

when I dismiss their evidence, I am saying their evidence does not back their conclusion, and I don't believe their conclusion because their conclusion is an empty assumption. saying their conclusion itself is false implies that you know for sure that it is false, even when you don't know.

Gggg102:
I get the point. although I'm sure we are a bit knowledgeable about today's pink smoke that we could know when something that breaks universal laws happens.

On the contrary, though. Science is currently going through the worst pink smoke ever, with quantum experiments. Fundamental concepts of consistency and repeatability have been thrown into disarray. In quantum theory, an event A can HAPPEN and NOT HAPPEN, AT THE SAME TIME! This throws into confusion all our concepts of reality. That is why they proposed multiverse theories to try to rescue consistency and say that A happened in one universe but not in another. But the multiverse theory is all very vague speculation on a par with astrology!