The Theist-Atheist Scale: Where are you? (Part 4)

[Ohnhai]

On Page 50 of 'The God Delusion' Richard Dawkins sets up a scale of probability for the existence of God.

1 is 100% certainty in the existence of God and 7 is is 100% certainty in the non existence of God.

Richard pigeon-holes himself at the 6 mark but with strong leanings towards 7.

Out of interest Where would you place yourself? Decimal points are OK, as RD does point out the scale is continuous and not rigidly confined to the 7 available options.

There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.

[ Part 1: http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/vie ... hp?t=47382
Part 2: http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/vie ... hp?t=81338
Part 3: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=107259&start=0]

[redwhine]

I love when someone says that there is "overwhelming evidence" supporting the claim that God does not exist. Exactly what is this overwhelming evidence? Inevitably, the answer is usually that no strong evidence has surfaced in 5 billion years of the earth's existence. Although this is actually debatable (I believe there is strong evidence in favor of God's existence), the figure '5 billion years' should not be confused for an extraordinarily long period of time. We have no knowledge of how long the universe has existed or how long it will continue to exist in the future. One possibility is that the universe has always existed (since time is really more of a construction than a real thing) and so 5 billion years is not a long time at all, nor is it a short time either, it's a measurement of how many times the earth has revolved around the sun, which is, of course, specific to our very isolated spec of the universe.

Where is your "strong evidence", i hope that wasn't it. The fact remains there is no evidence at all that god exists. Never was any, never will be. Therefore it is overwhelmingly evident that there is no god.

I have no evidence to present to you.

What a surprise!

But think about it: lack of evidence is not evidence. You are using lack of evidence that God exists as evidence that he doesn't exist;

...and you are using lack of evidence that God exists as evidence that he does exist.

unfortunately for you I can say that your lack of evidence that God doesn't exist is evidence that GOd does exist.

See. I said you were.

That clearly makes no sense,

...the first thing you've said that makes sense.

and therefore so does your argument.

Why, exactly?

[wunksta]

Finally, I really don't know why you are looking for evidence one way or the other. If you don't think God exists and I present you with evidence, that should not change your mind. Why? Because evidence is not proof. I'm not in search of evidence. I'm in search of truth. And therefore I do not belong on this board.

most people dismiss the idea that there can be any 'proof' of anything outside of math and logic. simply put, we are attempting to understand reality based on limited knowledge and even a piece of knowledge that points in one direction does not mean that its absolutely true. its just another piece of the puzzle and a few more pieces may present a different idea.

if you are looking for 'truth' then i suggest you try philosophy. however, even the philosophical support for a supernatural being is limited if not heavily contrived and relying on conjecture.

[wunksta]

But think about it: lack of evidence is not evidence.

but it gives no reason to believe.

You are using lack of evidence that God exists as evidence that he doesn't exist; unfortunately for you I can say that your lack of evidence that God doesn't exist is evidence that GOd does exist. That clearly makes no sense, and therefore so does your argument.

yet im sure you dismiss every other supernatural being using the same logic.

[force10]

I don't dismiss anything. I have not dismissed anything. Here is where I stand:

1. I believe in God.
2. I have no physical proof of God's existence, just personal experience.
3. There is no proof that God does not exist.
4. Lack of evidence is not evidence of God's non-existence.
5. I do not refute anyone's belief or lack of belief in God. The only thing I refute is those who claim to have arrived at their beliefs through logic as any such logic requires a leap in the argument to get from the 'evidence' to the 'conclusion'.

This is all I can say at this point. I do not understand how anything I have said above is inflammatory or disingenuous in any way. As far as my standards of rigor are concerned. How can you say that I have no standard of rigor when I have said that

1. I cannot prove that God exists.
2. I have no evidence that God exists.
3. I do not know that God exists.

I have not offered personal experience as evidence or proof that God exists. I have not offered the inability to disprove God's existence as proof that God exists. I am holding my argument to such high standards of rigor that I cannot really say anything as to the existence or non-existence of God.

[IIzO]

And you can add that you refuses to present your hermeneutics about this personal experience being a proof of God.

[force10]

And you can add that you refuses to present your hermeneutics about this personal experience being a proof of God.

I believe that is already stated in my post where I say "I cannot prove that God exists" and "I have no evidence that God exists."

[IIzO]

And you can add that you refuses to present your hermeneutics about this personal experience being a proof of God.

I believe that is already stated in my post where I say "I cannot prove that God exists" and "I have no evidence that God exists."

And as i asked before , could you please still describe this personal experience , and explain why this personal experience lead to the interpretation " God exists and communicated with me".
You can STILL explain even without having any evidence for it.
Edit: and could you please inform us of what exact proprieties the said God is supposed to have ?

[force10]

Edit: and could you please inform us of what exact proprieties the said God is supposed to have ?

To borrow an answer from your God - Richard Dawkins - I don't know what properties God has but I am working on it.

[IIzO]

Edit: and could you please inform us of what exact proprieties the said God is supposed to have ?

To borrow an answer from your God - Richard Dawkins - I don't know what properties God has but I am working on it.

......you don't need to be so upset as to make this obviously stupid statement about Dawkins being a God for me ( i sincerely don't give a damn about dawkins he is not the best philosopher around).But if there are no set propreties in your definition of God...what are you actually believing you had an experience with?!
WAIT are you evading again?