Evidence there is no god

[porch]

If we GROW UP and don't need the FAIRY TALES any longer then we should accept that SANTA does not exist...... I agree with you.... we should grow up in exactly the same way in regards to the fairy tale of the bible and YHWH.

Oh, woe is me! The arrogance and insults of the asantaists!

It seems you are talking about the children's Santa. That's fine. But what about the grown-up, sophisticated Santa? Many believe that Santa isn't actually, literally, a beardy man in a red outfit that pops up and down chimneys, but instead he manifests himself as The Spirit Of Giving, or something, so in a way, he really does make the presents appear under the trees even though he doesn't. And okay, some good children get little or nothing, and some bad children get an embarrassment of riches, but maybe Santa's just like that and we don't understand the mysterious ways of the Claus. Ever think of that?

Or maybe Santa exists but he doesn't even have anything to do with Christmas. You can't say he doesn't! Or, um, what else? Oh, I've got one! We don't know everything and who's to say what we'll discover in the future . . . so . . . .erm, Santa? Or something that could be called Santa, but we've never even conceived of it before?! Take that! TOUCHDOWN!! HO! HO! HO! *strikes Tebow pose. And then, with a gleam in his eye he puts his finger to the side of his nose, and whooshes up the chimney.*

 

[ynot]

Evidence of a thing can only exist if the thing exists. Asking for evidence for or against the existence of a thing for which no evidence exists is stupid. To claim that such a thing exists is even stupider.

 

[Leumas]

Oh, woe is me! The arrogance and insults of the asantaists!

It seems you are talking about the children's Santa. That's fine. But what about the grown-up, sophisticated Santa? Many believe that Santa isn't actually, literally, a beardy man in a red outfit that pops up and down chimneys, but instead he manifests himself as The Spirit Of Giving, or something, so in a way, he really does make the presents appear under the trees even though he doesn't. And okay, some good children get little or nothing, and some bad children get an embarrassment of riches, but maybe Santa's just like that and we don't understand the mysterious ways of the Claus. Ever think of that?

Or maybe Santa exists but he doesn't even have anything to do with Christmas. You can't say he doesn't! Or, um, what else? Oh, I've got one! We don't know everything and who's to say what we'll discover in the future . . . so . . . .erm, Santa? Or something that could be called Santa, but we've never even conceived of it before?! Take that! TOUCHDOWN!! HO! HO! HO! *strikes Tebow pose. And then, with a gleam in his eye he puts his finger to the side of his nose, and whooshes up the chimney.*

I think the best response to the above is the below

Evidence of a thing can only exist if the thing exists. Asking for evidence for or against the existence of a thing for which no evidence exists is stupid. To claim that such a thing exists is even stupider.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Let's say you have a group of people in a room and they are sitting around a table. There is just one door but no one knows what is beyond it because it's locked.

Everyone speculates endlessly about what is on the other side. Eventually some people come up with some interesting theories but there is still no way to find out without opening the door. Is it another room, outside, a big hole?

One person starts to tell everyone else that there is a monster on the other side of the door. If you open the door, it will eat you. Others scoff and say that the door monster doesn't exist.

Eventually the scoffers try to open the door and a large goat kills them.

On what basis does the person who says that there is a monster make his claim? Has he heard it? Seen it? Smelled it? If so why can't he provide evidence to the others?

"We can all hear that loud noise that sounds like something's smashing everything on the other side of that door, we'd better wait here until it stops" is a very different proposition from "I have no evidence what so ever, but it's just occurred to me that we can't rule out that there isn't a totally silent and undetectable monster on the other side of that door. We'd better just sit here until we die of dehydration among piles of our own bodily waste"

 

[RobDegraves]

On what basis does the person who says that there is a monster make his claim? Has he heard it? Seen it? Smelled it? If so why can't he provide evidence to the others?

You do know that it's an analogy right?

It was meant to illustrate the idea that without information at all, there is no point in speculating.

I don't know if they saw the monster because it's just an analogy.

I don't know if they have food and water or a tv, because it's an analogy.

Next time I will just state things rather than use analogies. I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp.

Sheesh.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

You know that my response was an analogy as well, right? Obviously not, 'Sheesh' yourself.

Your analogy wasn't hard to grasp, it just wasn't very good. Fantastical circumstances tortured to give an unrealistic result normally aren't.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Why on earth would a footballer praying annoy anyone?

If you think his god is a lot of superstitious nonsense then this constant interruption of the flow of the game is damn annoying.

Now that the praying wonder has failed, wouldn't it make sense if his fans abandoned his religion in favor of the Catholic religion of the star who smacked him down?

Tebow: Grandstanding Evangelical Christian Virgin -- looses!
Brady: Swearing Catholic with supermodel wife -- wins!

Why isn't this evidence to believers that Tebow's god is weaker than Brady's god, and that evangelicals should switch teams? The Bible is full of these kinds of persuasive demonstrations of God's power, so why not now?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....

Now that the praying wonder has failed, wouldn't it make sense if his fans abandoned his religion in favor of the Catholic religion of the star who smacked him down?

Tebow: Grandstanding Evangelical Christian Virgin -- looses!
Brady: Swearing Catholic with supermodel wife -- wins!

Why isn't this evidence to believers that Tebow's god is weaker than Brady's god, and that evangelicals should switch teams? The Bible is full of these kinds of persuasive demonstrations of God's power, so why not now?...

Good point.

 

[Bill Thompson]

There is no such thing as Nature.
There is no Universe.
There is no such thing as Existence.
So there is no God.

 

[ynot]

There is no such thing as Nature.
There is no Universe.
There is no such thing as Existence.
So there is no God.

Was going to reply but apparently I don't exist to do so.

 

[dafydd]

Was going to reply but apparently I don't exist to do so.

If I don't exist then who played guitar and sang at the Mayor's Ball last Saturday? These are deep waters.

 

[Mr. Scott]

There is no such thing as Nature.
There is no Universe.
There is no such thing as Existence.
So there is no God.

What doesn't exist is thoughtfulness behind that remark.