Evidence that there is no God

Originally posted by twhitehead
Although this is not evidence for the non-existence of the God that the majority of theists believe in, it is evidence that the God that creationists (a fairly large proportion of theists) believe in.

This is not true. The Catholic Church (which consititutes the majority of Christians) has explicitly repudiated the young-Earth creationist position on the age of the Earth. Even in the early centuries of the Church's inception doctors of the Church such as St. Iraenius and St.Augustine rejected young-Earth creationism. Young Earth creationists are in fact a minority and are only a relatively recent development from the evangelic movement.

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism:

Young Earth creationism has also failed to make much of an impact outside of fundamentalist Protestant denominations. Virtually all other Christian denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, reject the concept of Young Earth creationism. Many Bible scholars reject the fundamentalist approach to taking Genesis literally. Young Earth creationists disagree.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Young Earth creationists are in fact a minority and are only a relatively recent development from the evangelic movement.

That doesn't stop the ranters from using that as a favoured stick to hit their bogeyman with.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That doesn't stop the ranters from using that as a favoured stick to hit their bogeyman with.

Recently listening to an interview with Richard Dawkins, he stated that one of the reasons he so vehemently objected to religion was because there is an overhwleming proportion of theists who accept young-earth creationism and are hostile to science. I doubt though that the truth might interfere with his inexorable ranting.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Recently listening to an interview with Richard Dawkins, he stated that one of the reasons he so vehemently objected to religion was because there is an overhwleming proportion of theists who accept young-earth creationism and are hostile to science. I doubt though that the truth might interfere with his inexorable ranting.

Reasonable atheists should look upon people within their ranks like Richard Dawkins in the same way as reasonable Christians look at some of our own most extreme groups.

Originally posted by rwingett
Absence of evidence is just that, an absence of evidence, in this case for theistic claims. It is not evidence FOR anything, i.e. the claim that there is no god. All the absence of evidence can do is demonstrate that the theistic claims are unworthy of belief. It does nothing at all to prove them false, nor does it act as "evidence" in that direction, excep ...[text shortened]... ue. It certainly ranks very low on the scale of possible attacks one could make on theism.

Of course it is evidence of absence. Like twhitehead said, absence of evidence that a dog is in my room is evidence of absence of a dog my room.

Only for some types of God (unknowable) is such absence of evidence not evidence at all, but as I've said before, a God that has no physical manifestation whatsoever is quite irrelevant.

Originally posted by Palynka
Only for some types of God (unknowable) is such absence of evidence not evidence at all, but as I've said before, a God that has no physical manifestation whatsoever is quite irrelevant.

Sure. But no theist here is arguing that God has no physical "manifestations" or effects, merely that those cannot be identified with the physical sciences.

Originally posted by Palynka
Only for some types of God (unknowable) is such absence of evidence not evidence at all, but as I've said before, a God that has no physical manifestation whatsoever is quite irrelevant.

How does science deal with the concept of void?

Originally posted by Conrau K
This is not true. The Catholic Church (which consititutes the majority of Christians) has explicitly repudiated the young-Earth creationist position on the age of the Earth. Even in the early centuries of the Church's inception doctors of the Church such as St. Iraenius and St.Augustine rejected young-Earth creationism. Young Earth creationists are in fact a minority and are only a relatively recent development from the evangelic movement.

Please read my post again. I did say they were not in the majority.

However I have seen several surveys of americans which all showed that a significant number of americans believe in young earth creationism. A significant proportion of the theists on this site do to.
They are also the most vocal evangelists in my area of the world.
Creationists also make up a significant proportion of the Christians I personally know.

One of the large Christian churches in South Africa is the Zion Church and I have no idea what thier views are on creationism.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Sure. But no theist here is arguing that God has no physical "manifestations" or effects, merely that those cannot be identified with the physical sciences.

What basis do you have for that claim?

Your own God has supposed to have performed miracles that could have been identified by physical sciences. Note that I'm not claiming it is proof. I'm perfectly aware of the fallibility of science as it is today and its possible limitations even in the far future.

Basically, all I'm saying is that it is not through observation of physical evidence that one becomes a theist, as that type of evidence points clearly the other way.

Faith, divine inspiration even revelation (as far as I know) are not yet identifiable or measurable scientifically and they may very well never be. For me, added to the fact that I've never came in contact with such phenomena, this is evidence that they do not exist. Mere evidence, not proof.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
How does science deal with the concept of void?

Can you define what do you mean by void? Void has a precise definition in astronomy and I don't think that's what you mean...

Originally posted by Palynka
Can you define what do you mean by void? Void has a precise definition in astronomy and I don't think that's what you mean...

You (and the OED) have already answered the question, thanks.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You (and the OED) have already answered the question, thanks.

You shouldn't be so selfish in these participations of yours. 😉

Some people (like me) might be interested in discussing it further...

Edit: Not to mention that, for example, Spinoza's view might be at the very heart of this discussion.

Originally posted by Palynka
You shouldn't be so selfish in these participations of yours.

There's plenty of other clowns to laugh at.

I was thinking about the classic description of creation--the unmanifest One (god-void) dividing into Two, giving rise to a sequence of further division ad infinitum.

My intuition is that Spinoza's view is indeed key, but my intuition's not much cop at explication.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Go back and read the original post. I specifically stated that there are cases where it is true and cases where it isn't. Examples that demonstrate a statement to be false in one case does not prove the statement to be false for all cases.

You conclude that because God has not communicated with you, he does not exist -- citing "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" as your reason.

But you've just admitted that that basis of your argument is sometimes false. Your conclusion is therefore also sometimes false.

So God may very well exist even though he does not communicate with you since "absence of evidence is NOT ALWAYS evidence of absence."

Originally posted by spruce112358
You conclude that because God has not communicated with you, he does not exist -- citing "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" as your reason.

But you've just admitted that that basis of your argument is sometimes false. Your conclusion is therefore also sometimes false.

So God may very well exist even though he does not communicate with you since "absence of evidence is NOT ALWAYS evidence of absence."

The absence of evidence for any logic or sense in your post is evidence of absence of any sense in your post.