There is no evidence of a particular god’s existence

Author: PressF4Respect ,

Posts

Total: 215
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
A continuation of this thread:

PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
--> @3RU7AL @Athias @ludofl3x @Mopac @TheRealNihilist
Hi 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @PressF4Respect
Why?
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
--> @TheRealNihilist
Why what?
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @PressF4Respect
Have me as a receiver? 

Guess you didn't tag Imabench this time. 
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
--> @TheRealNihilist
You were in the previous discussion thread
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @PressF4Respect
Why add me here? 
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
--> @TheRealNihilist
Because I thought you would be interested 
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
--> @TheRealNihilist
😶           
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 1,439
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @PressF4Respect
Your argument is that "there's no evidence for a particular God's existence." Support your assertion.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
--> @Athias
Using the modus tollens argument I made in the previous thread, 
If there is a theistic argument, then theists would use it. 
If no theists are using theistic arguments, then there is no theistic evidence.
Theists are resorting to deistic arguments in the absence of theistic ones.
Therefore, there is no theistic argument. 
I can reduce the original assertion to this:
No theist has ever made a theistic argument.

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 1,439
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @PressF4Respect
Using the modus tollens argument I made in the previous thread, 
If there is a theistic argument, then theists would use it. 
If no theists are using theistic arguments, then there is no theistic evidence.
Theists are resorting to deistic arguments in the absence of theistic ones.
Therefore, there is no theistic argument. 
I can reduce the original assertion to this:
No theist has ever made a theistic argument.
Like I've stated before, this is an argument from ignorance. Not only does it not address the very argument you made, you're, once again, affirming your own assertion by citing the lack of evidence to its contrary. This is your argument using the Modus Tollens construction:

If p (there's evidence for a particular God's existence,) then q.
Not q.
Therefore not p (there's no evidence for a particular God's existence.) [Note that this thread's namesake is your conclusion.]

I've already completed half of it for you. Now you just need to provide your consequential statement. Once that's done, you support your premises, antecedent and your consequential statement because the Modus Tollens is inductive logic.
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,109
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
--> @PressF4Respect
Unless a god tells you what religious group to join. 

But ...IF YOU BELIEVE IN A GOD TYPE THING ,  you join a religious group.   
Its Common sense.

More like bat shlt crazy. 
So i ran some tests^  test being.
I  asked  1001 people that believe in God,    ARE YOU IN A RELIGIOUS GROUP ?
978 YESSS 
10   NO 
And the rest abused me. 

Sooooooooooo , it has appeared to me for quite some time now Thattttttttt.
People that believe in gods join religious groups.   Thus leaving me cuffufled. 

There is a link somewhere that i am missing . 

Because im not happy with.  
IF YOU HAVE or got a belief IN GOD then join a religious group . 

In some of my earlier studies  i asked every theist / religious type person on this site.  Are they IN THE  CORRECT RELIGIOUS GROUP. ( as we speak )  100% 
Im yet to find a theist that is not in the correct religious group. 


Sooooob i need to run test on and to ultimately rule out. 
Just ( Having a belief in God ) may in fact, that's may in fact,  highten some kind of senses thus mak8ng you. 
AAAAAAAAAA  BRILLIANT RELIGIOUS GROUP PICKER....






 


Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,109
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
If one can not prove nor disprove a gods existence thennnnnnnnnnn ,  ya just pick one of them.
Oh and then Make it the most important thing in your life.
Put it rightttttttttt on up the top there. 

Now you are to live out the rest of your life in accordance and in agreement with every bit of it.

WHAT ELSE IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOO IMPORTANT THAT YOU CAN'T PROVE. ? 

PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
--> @Athias
If p (there's evidence for a particular God's existence,) then q.
Not q.
Therefore not p (there's no evidence for a particular God's existence.)
If there's evidence for a particular God's existence, then people arguing for the existence of that particular god would be using it to prove their own god's existence.
People aren't using evidence to prove their own god (theistic evidence), instead they only use evidence to prove the existence of a god figure in general (deistic evidence).
Therefore, there's no evidence for a particular God's existence.

That's my argument. I've already repeated myself several times. The only thing I need to prove is the bolded portion (which was the original assertion that 3RUTAL made in the previous thread), which I am in the process of doing right now. This is what I'm trying to tell you. Understand?
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 801
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @PressF4Respect
Real life picture of Thor. He exists...QED.

Seriously though, you are using a very narrow understanding of 'evidence' (theistic arguments). A believer might point to anecdotal or physical evidence. Your thread title (as-is) could be shown false by weak evidence like "revelation" or an empty tomb. 

PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
--> @SkepticalOne
This thread is meant as a continuation of the previous one, and should be taken within the context of it. This thread was actually supposed to be a debate (where all of this stuff would be taken care of in advance), but it’s a thread instead because my opponent specifically stated that he did not want a debate.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
I believe The Ultimate Reality is God.


Obviously this God exists.

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 1,439
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @PressF4Respect
If there's evidence for a particular God's existence, then people arguing for the existence of that particular god would be using it to prove their own god's existence.
People aren't using evidence to prove their own god (theistic evidence), instead they only use evidence to prove the existence of a god figure in general (deistic evidence).
Therefore, there's no evidence for a particular God's existence.


Good. Now substantiate your premises. Note that in order for you to substantiate your antecedent, it must be argued as a material/logical biconditional. That is, p iff q, or "there's evidence for a particular God's existence" if and only if "people arguing for the existence of that particular god would [use] it to prove their own god's existence."

The only thing I need to prove is the bolded portion (which was the original assertion that 3RUTAL made in the previous thread), which I am in the process of doing right now. This is what I'm trying to tell you.

Understand?
No, you need to prove both the antecedent and the consequent, your major and minor premises. Modus Tollens is a logical form which communicates a rational connection of truths. It does not substantiate your premise (i.e. "create truth.") Here's an example:

If an individual liked apples, he or she would be 35 years old.
This individual is not 35 years old;
Therefore, this individual does not like apples.

This argument form only validates your conclusion if your premises are true. You must substantiate the condition of your antecedent, and the only way you can do that is to substantiate the logical biconditional. Take that into mind during your process.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 801
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @PressF4Respect
FWIW, I think your opponent was right to object to your blanket statement that there is "no evidence". There is crappy evidence for theistic gods ...just like there is crappy evidence for alien abductions. Crappy evidence is still evidence.

You're giving your opponent (or the audience) an easy way to dismiss your argument (or you) as irrational. 


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,919
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @SkepticalOne
Seriously though, you are using a very narrow understanding of 'evidence' (theistic arguments). A believer might point to anecdotal or physical evidence. Your thread title (as-is) could be shown false by weak evidence like "revelation" or an empty tomb. 
That's why you need to establish clear Standards-of-Evidence (common-ground).
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 801
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @3RU7AL
That's why you need to establish clear Standards-of-Evidence (common-ground).
True, and an unqualified claim of no evidence is not the way to do that.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
--> @Athias
"there's evidence for a particular God's existence" if and only if "people arguing for the existence of that particular god would [use] it to prove their own god's existence."
That is literally the premise I have been using all along. I’m still working on the full proof.


PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
--> @Athias
But first, tell me if you agree with my syllogistic argument:

P1: There are people who wish to prove the existence of their specific god (this is evident).
P2: If there was compelling evidence for their specific god, then they would use it (inferred logic).
P3: There is currently no one using said evidence (this is the premise I will prove).
C1: Therefore, there is no evidence for a specific god.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Athias @PressF4Respect
"there's evidence for a particular God's existence" if and only if "people arguing for the existence of that particular god would [use] it to prove their own god's existence."
That is literally the premise I have been using all along. I’m still working on the full proof.


There is only One True God, and whether there is evidence or not is irrelevant to the absolute necessity of this God existing. There is none like it, The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, who we can witness through the uncreated divine energy that permeates creation. We are speaking of it aren't we? There are many witnesses.