(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); The thread that was the shining light of the last two debating sections(ugh, really?) that was God vs Fact has been trashed or something(ugh, again) so this thread is here to take the place of that one.

Some extremely basic terminology...

Theist: believes in a god(s).
Deist: believes in a god(s) that created the universe but subsequently abandoned it and/or believes that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of god(s).
Atheist: does not believe in a god(s).
Agnostic: does not claim to know if a god exists or believes that such knowledge cannot be known, depending on the definition. Typically when I personally use this label I'm referring to the former.
Gnostic: claims to know one way or the other if a god exists.

There are some more but that's the basics down. I'm an agnostic atheist. What are you and why?

Edit: Thanks to whichever mod/admin butchered the thread's title and poll. The poll now makes no sense whatsoever.

This is special pleading. Why can a god just not show himself but a flying blue dog cannot? Maybe it's got superpowers!



I'd argue that it is. I'm not arguing that absence of evidence is proof of absence, merely that's it's evidence of absence.

We'd expect to see evidence of such dog as I have derived prior. Unless you're stating that such dog is omnipotent, then you cannot justify this claim. To do that would just be a negative affirmative, as you'd simply be replacing God as a human embodiment to an animal embodiment.

You just poorly attempted to create a distinction in your argument with circular reasoning. Enlighten me on what the difference between proof of absence and evidence of absence is. You just replaced the contention with a synonym in an attempt to make it volatile on a tangent.

Claiming it's omnipotent doesn't justify the original claim, it just creates a new one that needs justifying.



No I did not. Proof and evidence aren't synonyms. A quick internet search reveals:

Proof; "Evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true or believable."

Evidence; "A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment, something indicative."

Think of evidence as indicative and proof as conclusive. An absence of something is indicative that said thing does not exist however it is not conclusive, hence the distinction and the accuracy of the term "absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

The point being that you argument is a tautology; you say albeit that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, however evidence itself is a participle contingent upon logical reasoning.



To say that not having sufficient evidence to satisfy your epistemological situation justifies having evidence for a lack of belief is nothing more than a conjecture.

If I asked you if there were any pink elephants in the room, you'd take a quick look around, see that there are none, and state "there are no elephants in the room". This is because the statement would satisfy the Knowledge and Expectation criterion.

However, if I asked you if there was a sea monster at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, you would not be able to say that there's no evidence that a sea monster is there merely because the assumption fails the Knowledge and Expectation criterion. You would not be able to make a judgement on that spot whether or not a sea monster is at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, hence you cannot state that you have evidence of a fly not existing there merely because you cannot determine so.

Now on to your next matter of contention, omnipotence certainly does NOT create a new claim that needs justifying.

If archaeologists discovered human remnants in the heart of the Amazon Rainforest, it would be appropriate to state that a tribe to which these bones belonged existed without having to prove that claim, as you need proof for the next claim, and the next, and so on. You do not need an explanation for the explanation.

I was raised without any religion or beliefs, I just went my own way. Was into paganism for a little while, but now I don't give much thought to religion or any set belief. I suppose if I had to pick I'd just say I believe in scientific fact.

No. I reject this. You have essentially an infinite number of things that could exist but likely don't, and more often than not unsubstantiated claims are as far as we can tell false. Hence it's rational to say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

More importantly though, a lack of belief in something for which there is no evidence is the only rational position to take.



Again, no. From my perspective, things are assumed nonexistent until proven otherwise for the sake of practicality. Ignoring that, you're giving me an example of a sea monster (something we think to this point to not exist) in the Pacific ocean (a vastly explored part of earth that has satellites pointing down at it). If you can't provide evidence for such an extraordinary claim I will rubbish it until you do.



You do if the original explanation/origin is still unproven. That's the disparity between an omnipotent dog or deity and a tribe in the Amazon.

So you would deny the existence of something merely due to the lack of human recognizance? In that case, your very same principle would apply to objective morality, love, gravitational theory, and so forth. Reviewing this, is the "most rational" position to take? Why would we deny a concept that we understand so well, and to say its applicability in our lives is a mere "happy coincidence" is preposterous.




We've explored less than five percent of all oceans combined. (Citation: You must login or register to view this content.)



Again, you do not need an explanation for the explanation. If I said I believe that omnipotent deity was the creator of the universe, I do not need to further explain the deity's origins in order to justify that claim, but rather prove my original claim.

We know these things to exist - you're attacking our knowledge of how they work. That's not what my problem is with your sea monster example. We actually don't know that such a thing exists to begin with.

You won't be able to come up with an example for this because as far as I'm aware I don't believe in or accept the existence of something for which there is no evidence. There's evidence for love, morality, gravity and a whole host of other things. There is no evidence in favour of a sea monster or deity.



Let me rephrase what I initially said then.

Claiming it's omnipotent doesn't justify the original claim. It doesn't change the validity of the claim or the burden of proof on the claim whatsoever.

We actually DO NOT know these things to exist decisively. That's a whole other contention. Naturalists and followers of Dawkins alike will tell you that love does not exist and it's merely a set of chemical reactions in the brain. As far as morality goes, no one of that group will say it's objective either. Gravity is a widely accepted theory of on that note however, and i'll give you that for the group.

Before we proceed any further i'd like to know where you stand.

Epistemological / metaphysical Naturalism, nihilism, agnosticism, a form of theism, etc?

At this point you haven't delineated your position at all besides "agnostic atheist" in the OP, which makes any rebuttal futile when you're arguing the unknown. Where do you stand on moral issues, origins of the universe, and transcendence?