No Hell and everyone gets saved

First topic message reminder :

The Bible does not really teach of any burning HELL as the word in the Bible only means the grave or garbage dump where they use to throw dead bodies.

Many religions beside Christianity has taught people this wrong barbaric idea as their religious doctrine, but it is not real.

1) Any God that burns people for any reason is not only a monster but a criminal and a sinner and an evil entity.

2) Burning people is not "forgiveness" as it is rather the opposite of forgiving.

3) Burning people is not "love" as it is rather the opposite of love.

4) Putting any person into a Hell, link, is not justice and such an evil idea can not be justice.

5) To "love" means no pain and no more hurting for anyone, as per: "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." KJV. Revelation 21:4.

God is love, link here = 1 John 4:8, and God does not hurt people, and that means no one ever goes to any hell.

Everyone is a sinner at various degrees and depth, and there is no one as righteous.

Nobody goes to some fire and torment of any hell, and the saying of "Hell on earth" in this lifetime now is far more accurate.

In the end everyone gets saved and not even one sinner nor one evil sheep gets lost or left out because salvation is for all of mankind.

Jesus said "Love thy enemies" just as God loves His enemies, Matthew 5:43-48, so love does not burn people and love does not hurt people, and that means not even those that are sinners and enemies.

See 1 Corinthians 3:15 "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." So the person is being "SAVED" by the "FIRE" and not hurt by it.

The plan is to have a great salvation, and it would not be great if some people were excluded.

Just FYI.

Dr, Sheldon,
There is no Hell and Everyone Is Saved.

I would subscribe to this.

I think everyone will be judged on how they have lived their life according to the knowledge they had regarding behaviour etc;

What has that do with my post that you have yet again ignored almost entirely? You keep making claims, some fairly dishonest ones about what I have said, and then ignore my answers. This was my previous post:

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:38 pm

polyglide wrote:
Dr, Sheldon,
The point is you make all your assumptions on scietific claims etc;

I make no assumptions at all, and that sentence contradicts itself as if the claims are scientific then they are by definition scientifically evidenced.

Polyglie wrote:
To keep on saying I do not understand science is like me sayng you do not undetstand religion and in particular Christianity, as far as I am conerned the only religion.

In fairness I don't keep saying this, I have however shown quite specifically that you either don't or wont understand basic scientific principles and processes that you have shown in your posts you think your creationist claims can ignore, and still claim scientific validity for them. It's no good blaming me, as you keep doing or accusing me of being obsessed. This is silly as the processes are the specific requirements of the scientific process, and I have no say in that, so if you cite something as a scientific claim when it doesn't qualify as it can't be falsified and isn't peer reviewed then that speaks for itself.

I don't understand religion, not have I ever claimed to do so. On the contrary I find religious beliefs irrational, illogical and much of it absurd.

Polyglide wrote:
Just log on to human caused illnesses and you will find the answers to the question.

Oh dear, it was your claim and it's for you to evidence it, and I'm not wasting my time wading through another creationist blog filled with creationist propaganda, then taking the time to spell out why it's not scientifically valid only for you to ignore my post entirely and roll out another batch of claims, as you've done every time so far. Indeed you made multiple claims in your last post that aren't remotely true and when I took the time to answer them you have responded without even acknowledging them at all, it's extremely tiresome.

You claimed most diseases are caused by humans, you've provided no evidence at all, so it's being dismissed as the unevidenced rubbish it is.

If you don't want to respond then don't, but don't respond and ignore completely what I've said, you do this all the time.

Can you understand the logic of Universality, in terms of all of us ending in heaven?

Hell is obviously an invention of the church. Universalists Gnostic Christianity and other Universalist Abrahamic cults do not see God as a loser of the souls he calls the light of the world.

The light of the world does not end in hell.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

As you can see, especially those last two quotes, all are saved without a sacrifice.

The logic behind Universalism begins with knowing that all souls are created equal. It thus follows that God would treat all souls the same way and would all be given the best possible end due to us being the light of the world and equal. This follows natural law as well as heavenly law as those are never in conflict.

Look at judging, from God’s point of view, with an example of one we mostly think of as evil, Hitler.

Hitler would appear before God and as God examines Hitler’s life, he would see that all those Hitler interacted with, and who contributed to what Hitler became, would all have to share the blame and guilt for Hitler becoming the monster we think he was.

If you take that sound judging logic to it’s ultimate end, you will see the logic of either punishing all of us for what we have contributed to evil, or forgive us all for all being exactly what God, if he existed, created us to be.

Non-Universalist creeds, that have that imaginary religious creation called hell, are trying to appease their own blame and guilt by placing some souls above others even though God would have created us all equal. God unites while religions separate.

Do you believe God to be a Universalist God, or a God that is such a poor creator that he would have to send his perfectly created souls to eternal punishment instead of just curing them, if required?

Regards
DL

When you die, you're dead. There is no heaven or afterlife no matter how much you wish it to be so. The human brain is an organ that is the origin of thought. No brain, no thought.

That is a biological fact. The sooner you accept this, the more appreciative you will be of life and the short time you have on this planet. It's better to do the best you can during that time to help others, save the planet for future generations and encourage others to use reason and evidence to form their decisions and worldview.

snowyflake wrote:When you die, you're dead. There is no heaven or afterlife no matter how much you wish it to be so. The human brain is an organ that is the origin of thought. No brain, no thought.

I do not disagree but would speak to your use of language.

You say this as a fact, ---- "There is no heaven or afterlife no matter how much you wish it to be so."

"encourage others to use reason and evidence to form their decisions and worldview."

You are encouraging others to use evidence and reason, and that is laudable, but your statement is a logical fallacy as you have no evidence for your statement.

I do not disagree with your opinion. I am just pointing out that the atheist community tries to use word like, there is likely not heaven and hell. That is not a logical fallacy and cannot be attacked as such and id the better way to put it. No?

At the end of the day, it all depends on how words are interpreted and we all have our opinions on that. Here is an example of my Gnostic Christian way.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

Regards
DL

You say this as a fact, ---- "There is no heaven or afterlife no matter how much you wish it to be so."

"encourage others to use reason and evidence to form their decisions and worldview."

You are encouraging others to use evidence and reason, and that is laudable, but your statement is a logical fallacy as you have no evidence for your statement.

Why is it logically fallacious to deny the existence of something for which there is absolutely no evidence, and which denies known facts that are evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt? No one survives their own death in any meaningful way, surely this has been evidenced amply? The burden of proof lies entirely with those claiming a supernatural realm exists that they can demonstrate no evidence for, beyond logical fallacies like argumentum ad ignorantiam.

If I claim an invisible unicorn that can not be detected in any empirical way does not exist, is that a logically fallacious claim? The evidence for it seems no less compelling than heaven, unless I've missed something.

Nah. You are too bright to miss much of anything buddy.

The denial is quite intelligent. It is the phrasing of the denial that makes it fallacious.

The main difference in whatever claim is made is whether it is a known fact with evidence and proofs or an assumed fact without evidence or proofs.

The statement "There is no heaven or afterlife", is an assumed fact, not a known fact. This is why it cannot be taken as a true statement as there is no evidence to make it a provable statement. That makes it a logical fallacy.

It is logically fallacious to deny the existence of something for which there is absolutely no evidence or proof, because there is no way to look everywhere in the known universe to show that the statement is a lie.

You are correct in that it is to the one making the fallacious positive assertion that there is a heaven and afterlife to show his evidence and proofs. It is not to the rest of us to prove him wrong, and a negative assertion to the same heaven and afterlife is just as much of a fallacious statement that it cannot be proven either.

The one who does not believe should not make fallacious statements as then he can also be said to be making false statements to counteract the initial fallacious positive claim.

Best to do like some atheists do and say that there is likely no such thing as heaven or an afterlife. That leave ambiguity and doubt on the table while not abusing the language the way the one making the positive claim/lie.

Think like a judge looking for the truth based on known facts. Such a judge would discard any statement that has no provable facts. He would accept a beliefs sworn to perhaps if he thought it true.

For instance, a judge might take the absence of an omnipresent God as evidence and proof but he then would not have a belief in invisible Gods. He might allow absence of evidence as proof if such a statement were made.

I lack your eloquence and formal education you have but hope that is clear.

Regards
DL

The statement "There is no heaven or afterlife", is an assumed fact, not a known fact. This is why it cannot be taken as a true statement as there is no evidence to make it a provable statement.

I don't think it is a fact, or assumed.

Epistemologically speaking heaven is of course an unfalsifiable claim, so an opposite claim (that heaven does not exist) cannot be tested or therefore evidenced. This does not however make agnosticism a 50/50 premise that heaven exists. It is important to separate the lack or rejection of belief for something that is unevidenced, like atheism for example, with the knowledge something does or doesn't exist, which isn't possible to demonstrate with unfalsifiable claims, like my unicorn analogy.

Just why anyone believes anything exists for which there is no evidence is hard to say, but humans have a propensity for doing this.

Consider this, either a deity exists or a deity does not exist, the two positions are logical negations of each other as they are mutually exclusive. However the lack of belief in the existence of a deity (atheism) is not a claim that a deity does not exist, whereas believing a deity exists must be a claim it does exist in order to disbelieve it exists. Atheism no mare carries a burden of proof than you need to prove my invisible unicorn doesn't exist. However in epistemological terms you would be correct to say that a claim a deity does not exist requires that anyone making it demonstrate this. How do evidence the non-existence of something? Beyond of course pointing out there is no evidence to support it's existence, and claims made about it contradict the facts of the objective reality we all experience.

If you ever have the misfortune to enter into a dialogue with Spin on the Amazon forum, now calling himself exmachina, he will relentlessly make the fallacious claim that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. He seems to think agnosticism negates the possibility of disbelief, which of course is absurd.

The primary definition of agnosticism is the idea that nothing is known or can be known about the nature or existence of a deity. I have no problem with is at all as an atheist, why would I, since it is impossible to 'know' anything about something that does not exist, and no evidence demonstrates it does exist. Knowledge and belief are not the same thing, though I try to base belief on knowledge.

Why should the existence of Allah, Yahweh or Jesus be given the benefit of the doubt anymore than Zeus or Apollo, or my invisible unicorn, or stories about alien abductions involving the hapless victims being probed on the mother ship?

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

quote]The statement "There is no heaven or afterlife", is an assumed fact, not a known fact. This is why it cannot be taken as a true statement as there is no evidence to make it a provable statement.

I don't think it is a fact, or assumed.

It must be one or the other. If you do not like those descriptions then what else would you describe it as?

Just why anyone believes anything exists for which there is no evidence is hard to say, but humans have a propensity for doing this.

It may be a part of our survival strategy which would have us not put ourselves in harms way. Our selfish gene makes safety, order and security our number one preoccupation.

Consider this, either a deity exists or a deity does not exist, the two positions are logical negations of each other as they are mutually exclusive. However the lack of belief in the existence of a deity (atheism) is not a claim that a deity does not exist,

No argument so far with what you put. But ---

whereas believing a deity exists must be a claim it does exist in order to disbelieve it exists.

I would argue against this as it does not make sense to me.

The first part I agree with but that last does not seem to follow. Believing in order to disbelieve???

Regards
DL

It must be one or the other. If you do not like those descriptions then what else would you describe it as?

The rejection of a claim that is not based on any empirical evidence, and has come nowhere near achieving it's burden of proof. This is not an assumption, but nor can a contrary claim be 'evidenced' as the claim is unfalsifiable.

Just why anyone believes anything exists for which there is no evidence is hard to say, but humans have a propensity for doing this.

It may be a part of our survival strategy which would have us not put ourselves in harms way. Our selfish gene makes safety, order and security our number one preoccupation.

Indeed, though I meant why in the contemporary setting of 21st century scientific knowledge.

I would argue against this as it does not make sense to me.

Nor me, my punctuation is incorrect, believing something exists is a claim that requires a burden of proof, rejecting the claim or disbelieving it is not the same as making a contrary claim however. Hitchen's razor applies...

The first part I agree with but that last does not seem to follow. Believing in order to disbelieve???

Typo, I edited it incorrectly and had meant to start a new sentence and remove a section of text as follows:

" (atheism) is not a claim that a deity does not exist, whereas believing a deity exists must be a claim it does exist. Atheism no mare carries a burden of proof than you need to prove my invisible unicorn doesn't exist."

Apologies for my error...

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

]quote]It must be one or the other. If you do not like those descriptions then what else would you describe it as?

The rejection of a claim that is not based on any empirical evidence, and has come nowhere near achieving it's burden of proof. This is not an assumption, but nor can a contrary claim be 'evidenced' as the claim is unfalsifiable.

It must be because I am French, but what you describe is an assumption. I was looking for one word while you give a description off a word. I don't think we have a real argument though.

Just why anyone believes anything exists for which there is no evidence is hard to say, but humans have a propensity for doing this.

It may be a part of our survival strategy which would have us not put ourselves in harms way. Our selfish gene makes safety, order and security our number one preoccupation.

Indeed, though I meant why in the contemporary setting of 21st century scientific knowledge.  

If push came to shove, I think you would see the many who say they believe in supernatural issues, fall by the wayside.
Even some of the staunchest literalist draw the line at talking serpents and donkeys. That excludes the fundamentalist fools of course.

I would argue against this as it does not make sense to me.

Nor me, my punctuation is incorrect, believing something exists is a claim that requires a burden of proof, rejecting the claim or disbelieving it is not the same as making a contrary claim however. Hitchen's razor applies...

The first part I agree with but that last does not seem to follow. Believing in order to disbelieve???

Typo, I edited it incorrectly and had meant to start a new sentence and remove a section of text as follows:

" (atheism) is not a claim that a deity does not exist, whereas believing a deity exists must be a claim it does exist. Atheism no mare carries a burden of proof than you need to prove my invisible unicorn doesn't exist."

Apologies for my error...

[/quote]

Not a problem buddy.

Regards
DL

I think Richard Dawkins’ seven categories of belief and non-belief (‘The God Delusion’, p.50-51) help to summarise much of this discussion:-

1. “I do not believe, I know.”
2. “I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”
3. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”
4. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”
5. “I don’t know whether God exists, but I’m inclined to be sceptical.”
6. “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable. I assume that he is not there.”
7. “I know there is no God.”

Dawkins places himself in category 6 but leaning towards 7, saying that “reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist”. That makes sense to me, with agnostics in category 4 (and technically in 3 and 5) and atheists in 6 and 7.

Ivan wrote:I think Richard Dawkins’ seven categories of belief and non-belief (‘The God Delusion’, p.50-51) help to summarise much of this discussion:-

1. “I do not believe, I know.”
2. “I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”
3. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”
4. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”
5. “I don’t know whether God exists, but I’m inclined to be sceptical.”
6. “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable. I assume that he is not there.”
7. “I know there is no God.”

Dawkins places himself in category 6 but leaning towards 7, saying that “reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist”. That makes sense to me, with agnostics in category 4 (and technically in 3 and 5) and atheists in 6 and 7.

Dawkins is as careful with language as I try to be so as not to utter logical fallacies like, --- there is no God.

faith and belief should always be separate from what we know as facts.

Regards
DL

faith and belief should always be separate from what we know as facts.

Belief should always be based on what we know as facts. Faith is useless for discovering truth, or else we'd not lock people up when they were delusional.

I'm still not seeing why denying the existence of something is a logical fallacy when there is no evidence for it's existence? Especially if it's existence is unfalsifiable. Agnosticism is the belief that nothing is or can be known about the nature or existence of God. I'd say nothing is known or can be known nature or existence of mermaids, does that mean disbelieving they exist is logically fallacious?

4. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”

This is not agnosticism either, though this is a very common misconception. Since agnosticism accepts nothing is or can be known of the existence of a deity, so it follows it would be impossible to say how probable or not it's existence is. This does not negate disbelief of course, since this is epistemologically true of all unfalsifiable claims. It's fairly easy to create one like my example of invisible unicorn undetectable in any empirical way, and ask yourself if not being able to 'disprove' it's existence makes it a 50/50 premise.

Whenever apologetics resorts to the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. I always ask what the evidence for the non-existence of something looks like?

Greatest I am: faith and belief should always be separate from what we know as facts.

Faith and belief should ALWAYS be based on facts and evidence. I believe my husband loves me because he demonstrates this every day. God does not. Believers will attribute any small coincidence or natural occurrence as evidence of god's magical presence. This is so entirely a human construct of our 'cause and effect' thinking that I take this to be evidence that WE created god and not the other way round.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

Belief should always be based on what we know as facts. Faith is useless for discovering truth, or else we'd not lock people up when they were delusional.

We are not locking up all those who are delusional.

I E. All Christians and Muslims.

I'm still not seeing why denying the existence of something is a logical fallacy when there is no evidence for it's existence?

My best answer are your own words from below.

"I always ask what the evidence for the non-existence of something looks like?"

Especially if it's existence is unfalsifiable.

I agree.

Agnosticism is the belief that nothing is or can be known about the nature or existence of God. I'd say nothing is known or can be known nature or existence of mermaids, does that mean disbelieving they exist is logically fallacious?

That is a belief, not a fact. A belief I share BTW.

I agree and to make either a positive or negative claim of that existence or non-existence as a certainty are both logical fallacies.

Whenever apologetics resorts to the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. I always ask what the evidence for the non-existence of something looks like?

See above.

Regards
DL

snowyflake wrote:Greatest I am: faith and belief should always be separate from what we know as facts.

Faith and belief should ALWAYS be based on facts and evidence. I believe my husband loves me because he demonstrates this every day. God does not. Believers will attribute any small coincidence or natural occurrence as evidence of god's magical presence. This is so entirely a human construct of our 'cause and effect' thinking that I take this to be evidence that WE created god and not the other way round.

This is also my belief.

At the same time, all myths are usually based on some small nugget of truth. That does not mean that they should not be read as myths.

I also know that the world is stranger than most want to believe.

For instance I know that telepathy exists as a fairly rare phenomenon. Unfortunately, their is no imperial evidence of proof for it to show. How many of such anecdotal rendering from others are true, I cannot know though.

I do not mind having an open mind but am careful not to let garbage enter it or the good stuff fall out.

Regards
DL

Belief should always be based on what we know as facts. Faith is useless for discovering truth, or else we'd not lock people up when they were delusional.

GIA "We are not locking up all those who are delusional."

I realise that, which is why I didn't say all. The double standard applied to faith by the religious, as compared to a delusional faith one is Napoleon Bonaparte for example, is not wasted on me, nonetheless faith is either a valid means of ascertaining what is true, or it is worthless. It cannot be valid for one belief but not for another. I think it perfectly clear that it is worthless in all instances. It would be better to toss a coin...

I'm still not seeing why denying the existence of something is a logical fallacy when there is no evidence for it's existence?

"My best answer are your own words from below."

"I always ask what the evidence for the non-existence of something looks like?"

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow, there can be no evidence for what does not exist, if the claim is unfalsifiable then that means there is no way to falsify it even if it is false, hence asking someone to prove there is no invisible unicorn next to them doesn't make denying it exists logically fallacious if they can't.

I agree and to make either a positive or negative claim of that existence or non-existence as a certainty are both logical fallacies.

So if I claim an invisible unicorn is next to you, and you deny this do you really see those claims as carrying an equal burden of proof, and your denial as a logical fallacy? The reality of our existence would be impossible to interpret in any meaningful way if we allowed this. A denial of a claim does not require (absolute) certainty, this is epistemologically impossible anyway.

You are creating a double standard of evidence.

You demand evidence of a claim that there is a God, which you should, then say that the denial of that  claim, saying  that there is no God "does not require (absolute) certainty".

That is a clear double standard of evidence to the two statements.

If you demand evidence for the positive claim, then the same demand can be made of you for the negative claim.

Reciprocity is fair play. Play fair.

Regards
DL

That's retarded GIA. Prove to me that unicorns don't exist. You cannot prove the nonexistence of something. If it isn't there IT ISN'T THERE!! How can there be evidence of something that doesn't exist??

That's not a double standard at all. That's just common sense. Just because we can imagine The BEST god ever doesn't mean that whatever we imagine has an equal possibility of being real. That's just silly.

snowyflake wrote:

That's retarded GIA. Prove to me that unicorns don't exist.

I cannot and that is why I would not say unicorns do not exist.

You cannot prove the nonexistence of something.

Correct and that is why I would not say that something does not exist.

If it isn't there IT ISN'T THERE!!

Correct, but that does not mean that it is not elsewhere and there is no way to look everywhere at the same time.

How can there be evidence of something that doesn't exist??

There cannot be.

That's not a double standard at all.

True. That is not the double standard I wrote of above.

The double standard was his demanding evidence to the positive claim while saying he did not have to have it for his negative claim.

That's just common sense.

True but sense is not at issue. The proper use of language is and to phrase something unproven or even un-provable, as a fact without evidence, is what a logical fallacy is.

Just because we can imagine The BEST god ever doesn't mean that whatever we imagine has an equal possibility of being real. That's just silly.

I agree.

I don't think we have an argument. I think we have a case where you did not understand what I wrote.

Regards
DL

snowyflake wrote:That's retarded GIA. Prove to me that unicorns don't exist. You cannot prove the nonexistence of something. If it isn't there IT ISN'T THERE!! How can there be evidence of something that doesn't exist??

That's not a double standard at all. That's just common sense. Just because we can imagine The BEST god ever doesn't mean that whatever we imagine has an equal possibility of being real. That's just silly.

But can there be no evidence of something that does exist? That is beyond our senses or our physical and scientifical means of detection?   A  'spirit' world comes to mind. Just a thought! Scientifical? What am I talking about? Scientific

trevorw2539 wrote:But can there be no evidence of something that does exist? That is beyond our senses or our physical and scientifical means of detection?   A  'spirit' world comes to mind. Just a thought!   Scientifical? What am I talking about? Scientific

Aside the religious view; what we call physical laws etc are undetectable. We can only ... to the best of current knowledge give "discriptions" of the effects observed.  Why do things do what they do / why do the influencial laws maintain constant ?

Using the analogy of living in a computer virtual world.  How would the virtual world know of an existing programmer outside even after the discovery of binary code to go on? (The only analogy I could think at the moment)

trevorw2539 wrote:

snowyflake wrote:That's retarded GIA. Prove to me that unicorns don't exist. You cannot prove the nonexistence of something. If it isn't there IT ISN'T THERE!! How can there be evidence of something that doesn't exist??

That's not a double standard at all. That's just common sense. Just because we can imagine The BEST god ever doesn't mean that whatever we imagine has an equal possibility of being real. That's just silly.

But can there be no evidence of something that does exist?

No. All that exists has it's existence as evidence that it exists.

If not detectable, it is a logical fallacy to say that it exists, as no evidence can ever be given as proof of that existence.

Regards
DL

Jsmythe wrote:

Aside the religious view; what we call physical laws etc are undetectable. We can only ... to the best of current knowledge give "discriptions" of the effects observed.  

I do not agree.

What we are calling the law of gravity and the law of evolution, until we find an experiment that gives a different result than what we use to show it is a law, should be classed as physical laws.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:No. All that exists has its existence as evidence that it exists.

Yes. Thank you for confirming that god doesn't exist.

Greatest I am wrote:All that exists has it's existence as evidence that it exists.

If not detectable, it is a logical fallacy to say that it exists, as no evidence can ever be given as proof of that existence.

Regards
DL

That's a wide sweeping statement. There was no evidence for a 'quark' 1000 years ago that could be detected by man. Now we have that evidence. What the future holds is unknown. What there is out there that we haven't the means to detect at the moment might change the course of mankind. Spirits? Mine's a Scotch

Greatest I am wrote:You are creating a double standard of evidence.

You demand evidence of a claim that there is a God, which you should, then say that the denial of that  claim, saying  that there is no God "does not require (absolute) certainty".

No I have created no double standard since I apply the same standard to all claims, nor have I denied a deity exists, I no more need to do this than I you need to deny an invisible unicorn that cannot be detected in any empirical way exists and is standing next to you. Both claims are unfalisifiable so demanding evidence a deity doesn't exist has the same logical validity to my demanding evidence for the non-existence of my theoretical unicorn.

That is a clear double standard of evidence to the two statements.

No it isn't I'm afraid, as I asked and you have yet to answer, do you think a claim for my theoretical unicorn carries the same burden of proof as a denial of it's existence? Do you think a denial that someone has been beamed aboard an alien spacecraft and met aliens requires proof?

If you demand evidence for the positive claim, then the same demand can be made of you for the negative claim.

No it doesn't, again that is logically and epistemologically fallacious, or do you think my invisible unicorn might be real until it is disproved?

Reciprocity is fair play. Play fair.

I don't know what that means, but I didn't create logic, or philosophical epistemology. The only double standard is the the way this obviously fallacious dodge to shift the burden of proof is used by religious apologetics, who then reject it for all else.  







Regards
DL

snowyflake wrote:That's retarded GIA. Prove to me that unicorns don't exist. You cannot prove the nonexistence of something. If it isn't there IT ISN'T THERE!! How can there be evidence of something that doesn't exist??

That's not a double standard at all. That's just common sense. Just because we can imagine The BEST god ever doesn't mean that whatever we imagine has an equal possibility of being real. That's just silly.

Any minute now someone will present the fallacious old chestnut that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence, which of course it is. Does anyone really think the absence of evidence for mermaids is NOT evidence they don't exist.

 But can there be no evidence of something that does exist? That is beyond our senses or our physical and scientifical means of detection?   A  'spirit' world comes to mind. Just a thought!   Scientifical? What am I talking about? Scientific

If there is no evidence, and it therefore follows you cannot define it in any meaningful way, then you cannot claim it exists in any epistemological way. Can you evidence or define the  words 'spirit word'? If not then why is a denial of the claim carry any less veracity than a denial of someone claiming they have an invisible unicorn? As with GIA's argument you seem to be implying that a claim can carry some validity merely because it is falsifiable, I don't think this makes much sense, else all manner of absurd claims would become valid.

Aside the religious view; what we call physical laws etc are undetectable. We can only ... to the best of current knowledge give "discriptions" of the effects observed.  Why do things do what they do / why do the influencial laws maintain constant ?

Using the analogy of living in a computer virtual world.  How would the virtual world know of an existing programmer outside even after the discovery of binary code to go on? (The only analogy I could think at the moment)

Physical laws are not undetectable though. The behaviour of physical laws is evidence they exist, and can be detected obviously. Scientific laws (like scientific theories) are our explanations of how the NATURAL PHYSICAL universe works. They are also falsifiable, they have to be before science can test them, unfalsifiable claims are rejected by science, it is a basic requirement of all scientific ideas. This is in complete contrast to claims for the existence of deities, which (here at least) some are suggesting carry validity because they cannot be falsified, even though they are unfalsifiable. This is logically and scientifically fallacious.

Scientific theories are broad large explanations of how natural phenomena work, laws are small explanations of why certain aspects of those theories behave as they do. A scientific law is not a linear progression in scientific validity from a theory, they are both the pinnacle of scientific thought on the subject they apply to.

No. All that exists has it's existence as evidence that it exists.

So invisible unicorns have their existence as evidence they exist, and you can't deny they exist of course, unless you can 'prove' they don't?

This doesn't sound logically consistent to me, and it sounds epistemologically absurd, though I admit I'm far from an expert in philosophical epistemology.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:If there is no evidence, and it therefore follows you cannot define it in any meaningful way, then you cannot claim it exists in any epistemological way. Can you evidence or define the  words 'spirit word'? If not then why is a denial of the claim carry any less veracity than a denial of someone claiming they have an invisible unicorn? As with GIA's argument you seem to be implying that a claim can carry some validity merely because it is falsifiable, I don't think this makes much sense, else all manner of absurd claims would become valid.

 

All I am saying is that because we have no evidence for a 'spirit' world it does not mean there is not one. We just have no means of detecting any possible world - as with the quark.

trevorw2539 wrote: All I am saying is that because we have no evidence for a 'spirit' world it does not mean there is not one. We just have no means of detecting any possible world - as with the quark.

First I'll deal with my typo, I meant unfalsifiable not falsifiable (5th line 6th word).

Now I'm going to replace the words 'spirit world' in your claim with 'invisible unicorn' so we can test the argument.

All I am saying is that because we have no evidence for a(n) 'invisible unicorn' it does not mean there is not one. We just have no means of detecting any possible invisible unicorn - as with the quark.

Do you really believe your claim means an invisible unicorn might exist? If not then you'll have to explain why without recourse to any evidence. As with GIA's claim that the denial of an unfalsifiable claim requires proof this isn't going to be possible. You seem to be suggesting as does he, that all manner of absurd claims might be true if they can't be falsified, but it's easy to make claims that are unfalsifiable, but that are quite demonstrably nonsense.

I'm obviously not convinced, but I'm prepared to listen of course.

As for quarks...

"A quark (/ˈkwɔːrk/ or /ˈkwɑːrk/) is an elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter. Quarks combine to form composite particles called hadrons, the most stable of which are protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei.[1] Due to a phenomenon known as color confinement, quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation; they can be found only within hadrons, such as baryons (of which protons and neutrons are examples) and mesons. For this reason, much of what is known about quarks has been drawn from observations of the hadrons themselves."

So again we can observe evidence of their existence by the influence they have. The name quark is just a noun science has applied to a natural phenomenon that we can observe and evidence. We can also accurately define it, and make prediction based on this definition, and of course falsify it's existence by testing those predictions. Again this is in stark contrast to ALL supernatural claims, like 'spirit worlds' and invisible unicorns.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
First I'll deal with my typo, I meant unfalsifiable not falsifiable (5th line 6th word).

Now I'm going to replace the words 'spirit world' in your claim with 'invisible unicorn' so we can test the argument.

You can also replace with; "strings" from string theory ... dark matter and the newer suggestion of "super fluids" etc but you'd still leave the why out - "invisible" forces that make these behaviours constant and predicatable.


The origin of the unicorn claim can be concluded "forensically" which would be imo a different result from the biblical claim under the same scrutiny. You will obviously be bound to have problems when one is not accepting at least some possibilty (Like agnostics)  - from a perspective of science curiosity If ; ALL your belief of existence ...a simple cut and dry ... is based purely on "materialism".

Jsmythe wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
First I'll deal with my typo, I meant unfalsifiable not falsifiable (5th line 6th word).

Now I'm going to replace the words 'spirit world' in your claim with 'invisible unicorn' so we can test the argument.

You can also replace with; "strings" from string theory ... dark matter and the newer suggestion of "super fluids" etc but you'd still leave the why out - "invisible" forces that make these behaviours constant and predicatable.

No I have not left this out, that's just an assumption there is a reason. Unless of course you can demonstrate some evidence there even is a 'why'? However this latest assumption also ignores my test of your earlier claim.

The origin of the unicorn claim can be concluded "forensically" which would be imo a different result from the biblical claim under the same scrutiny.

I have no idea what that means sorry, but it doesn't matter as I was not comparing the invisible unicorn to "biblical claims" whatever that means (it implies evidence in which case present it and we can be done with unfalsifiable claims). I only showed that GIA's and your claim that something might exist just because it couldn't be falsified is logically fallacious. Or else you'd have to accept an invisible unicorn could might exist, and if you agree with GIA that it was logically fallacious to deny it's existence without proof, is that what you think, only I didn't see any answer?

You will obviously be bound to have problems when one is not accepting at least some possibilty (Like agnostics)

Two errors here I'm afraid. Firstly I have made no such claim as there being no possibility, though again I note you seem unwilling to say whether there is a possibility an invisible unicorn exists and is next to you? Secondly agnosticism does not accept the possibility that a deity exists, it claims nothing is or can be known about it's existence, just as I have said repeatedly. Do you think you can know something about the nature or existence of an invisible unicorn?

 - from a perspective of science curiosity If ; ALL your belief of existence ...a simple cut and dry ... is based purely on "materialism".

Science is the study of the natural physical world and universe, please look this up if you doubt me. It can study nothing that is not falsifiable, which is why it's most basic requirement of all ideas and claims is that they are falsifiable. what non-material things are you claiming might exist, how are you claiming to know this, and how might the claim be falsified? Again bear in mind you seem to be suggesting my invisible unicorn might possibly exist, do you think this?

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

trevorw2539 wrote: All I am saying is that because we have no evidence for a 'spirit' world it does not mean there is not one. We just have no means of detecting any possible world - as with the quark.

I'm going to replace the words 'spirit world' in your claim with 'invisible unicorn' so we can test the argument.

I haven't claimed there is a 'spirit world'. I'm simply saying IF there is we have no means of detecting it. Though some would tell you they know and have experienced contact with this 'world'. Me? All I know is that there are people in this world that have 'powers/abilities' beyond that of most other people.

What does Hamlet say to Horatio?  
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in our philosophy.  

I haven't claimed there is a 'spirit world'. I'm simply saying IF there is we have no means of detecting it

How do you know this? I could make the same claim for invisible unicorns, I don't see how this tells us anything.

Though some would tell you they know and have experienced contact with this 'world'.

Some people think they're Joan of Arc, again I'm disinclined to infer anything from this. If they can produce evidence then they're keeping it pretty quiet.

there are people in this world that have 'powers/abilities' beyond that of most other people.

Do you mean like top athletes and sportsmen and women?

I agree with Shakespeare the world and universe is a fascinating place, and he would have known even less than we now do. What might Shakespeare have made of 21st century scientific discoveries I wonder. However mysterious and unknown does not in any way evidence anything supernatural. People have always attached supernatural causation to what they couldn't explain, but it has yet to be the case, and every time we explain those things like lightning, tsunamis, earthquakes etc. they always turn out to be natural phenomenon. I can maintain a sense of mystery about the unknown without being inclined in any way toward the numinous.

snowyflake wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:No. All that exists has its existence as evidence that it exists.

Yes. Thank you for confirming that god doesn't exist.

I did not and cannot confirm that God does not exist.

If he does though, I think he should be killed on sight if he is at all like the mainstream Gods.

Those Gods are real pricks.

Regards
DL

trevorw2539 wrote:

]quote="Greatest I am"]All that exists has it's existence as evidence that it exists.

If not detectable, it is a logical fallacy to say that it exists, as no evidence can ever be given as proof of that existence.

Regards
DL

That's a wide sweeping statement.

Indeed. I think it irrefutable and applies to all of reality.

There was no evidence for a 'quark' 1000 years ago that could be detected by man. Now we have that evidence.

True but that does not refute anything. It confirms instead as it's proven existence by being discovered and known. It's existence is proof of it's existence holds up.

What the future holds is unknown.

True but I will put my money on the sun rising tomorrow.

What there is out there that we haven't the means to detect at the moment might change the course of mankind. Spirits? Mine's a Scotch

[/quote]



Regards
DL

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:You are creating a double standard of evidence.

You demand evidence of a claim that there is a God, which you should, then say that the denial of that  claim, saying  that there is no God "does not require (absolute) certainty".

No I have created no double standard since I apply the same standard to all claims, nor have I denied a deity exists, I no more need to do this than I you need to deny an invisible unicorn that cannot be detected in any empirical way exists and is standing next to you. Both claims are unfalisifiable so demanding evidence a deity doesn't exist has the same logical validity to my demanding evidence for the non-existence of my theoretical unicorn.

That is a clear double standard of evidence to the two statements.

No it isn't I'm afraid, as I asked and you have yet to answer, do you think a claim for my theoretical unicorn carries the same burden of proof as a denial of it's existence? Do you think a denial that someone has been beamed aboard an alien spacecraft and met aliens requires proof?

If you demand evidence for the positive claim, then the same demand can be made of you for the negative claim.

No it doesn't, again that is logically and epistemologically fallacious, or do you think my invisible unicorn might be real until it is disproved?

Reciprocity is fair play. Play fair.

I don't know what that means, but I didn't create logic, or philosophical epistemology. The only double standard is the the way this obviously fallacious dodge to shift the burden of proof is used by religious apologetics, who then reject it for all else.  



Regards
DL

You said
"I apply the same standard to all claims,".

Then you asked.
"as I asked and you have yet to answer, do you think a claim for my theoretical unicorn carries the same burden of proof as a denial of it's existence?

I agree with you that both claims carry the same burden of proof.

Therefore. My statement below.

You demand evidence of a claim that there is a God, which you should, then say that the denial of that  claim, saying  that there is no God "does not require (absolute) certainty".

---- shows you flipping from one standard to another. At least in the way I read English.

Do remember that I am French if I did not read you right and accept my apology.

Perhaps others here can opine on the language as well.

Doc. As an aside and not to discuss this, but your "The behaviour of physical laws is evidence they exist" may be argued against by the fact that science is now saying that gravity is not real and what we observe is magnetic forces at work. I have absolutely no ideas on this issue and just wanted to bring you up to date in case you would like to look into it.

Regards
DL