Instigator / Pro
2
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
won
Topic
#2325

A weak basis for atheism.....

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Sum1hugme
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

So you're an atheist because there is no evidence that you see of God existing. So therefore, you believe God doesn't exist.

This is not much of a justification meaning not a good enough reason. If the sole basis was truly that, it be a very weak position. It's highly likely, that once fully thought out, there is something else there that is more reasonable .

But the "no evidence" excuse does little to nothing to substantiate.

Quite simply using this principle, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", you'll have to think harder in this context.

So with this in mind, how is the reason being of "no evidence" being worth much of anything?

Now this doesn't mean that you can't maintain a weak position as such. These positions exist alright but the topic statement is not false.

Please comment or send a message for questions and clarity.

You're just hung up on the idea of a test. I don't believe deep down you accept that things EXIST without evidence.

You only feel comfortable if you can test or falsify.
I keep saying the point is not about testing, not about testing, not about testing.

Like it's just a basic principle of "just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it's not there.

That's all I'm saying. There can be many, many, many animals I'm yet to discover. The animals I know of now may not be the only ones that exist. There's nothing strong enough of a conviction to accept or reject this.
I can see this being very hard to comprehend when you are a super hard skeptic.

-->
@Mall

Nobody is saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absense, just that absence of evidence is reason enough to not believe the claim immediately and investigate it. If it can't be investigated, it's useless and shouldn't be accepted as a provisionally true model of an aspect of reality.

"Tree exists" - testable and useful
"God exists" - not testable and useless

You're still missing what I'm saying. Basically I'm saying the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

I can live all my life and die never knowing about a particular tree's existence or species of tree or animal.
Just because I see or hear no evidence of it , it does not make it strong enough to disbelieve it.

This is what I also mean by you guys not thinking deep enough at what's being really said. Taking a superficial, surface , face value at things when the value is much greater.

-->
@Mall

But we can test for a tree we can't test for God so these aren't comparable

It's not about knowing the sound. It's about knowing whether the tree exists.

Many things are KNOWN about the claim of God. We don't know whether God exists.

Follow the logic close, very close.

-->
@Mall

It does, though it is different.

We know that physically a tree will make a sound but we don't know there is a God.

Voters: does a tree make a sound in the woods even when you're not there to see it fall?

Double standard when it comes to the claim of a god.

-->
@Barney

I haven't seen it haha. But thank you for voting on this debate

-->
@Sum1hugme

For some reason your argument reminded me of a recurring joke on one TV show. Do you watch Legends of Tomorrow? In one episode they turned themselves into a Captain Planet-esc avatar to destroy a giant demon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhRgavGSapo

-->
@BearMan

Nice style guide.

-->
@Sum1hugme

If you want to view Ragnar's look here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wgEoU2M4k7PvJZzvbwrjw8nOomkYqnBpDaLR4igvMe0/edit#heading=h.4gchlr7uwv2c

-->
@BearMan

thx for the resource

-->
@Sum1hugme

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MFdllQK7Kd3wEuSO9FKItsxMVhNmIdxfB3GOyYTTL5g/edit?usp=sharing

-->
@Mall

Don't u abandon this argument now

As RationalWiki states:
“some assertions demand that the universe be screaming with supporting evidence, so when that evidence is not actually observed, it counts against it."

Occam’s razor is the principle that, of two explanations that account for all the facts, the simpler one is more likely to be correct.
So, if there is no evidence of a God (something I hope you agree is a big assertion that would likely have a lot of evidence pointing towards it if it were true), what is the more likely explanation under Occam's razor?

a. God exists and provides no evidence of his existence.

or

b. God does not exist.

I think the answer is clear. The question then becomes, is there evidence of God's existence?

-->
@Mall

What's your justification for the claim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." If I say "there is no evidence that a 9th planet in our solar system exists, therefore I assume there is no 9th planet." This is slightly different from the claim of God's existence, but in this case absence of evidence does serve as evidence as absence, so you will have to prove that this claim is true for the question of God's existence.

-->
@seldiora

That needs to be more clear I think

-->
@MisterChris

pro is trying to argue that "No evidence for god" is not enough to disprove god

There is no resolution here. What exactly is PRO trying to prove? And what is CON disproving?