'Evidence' or the 'lack of': The same journey

Proven? No. Nobody is claiming that. But evidenced?In how many previous gaps where the supernatural has been invoked as an explanation has the supernatural answer been borne out? How many times has the supernatural answer been overturned (i.e. been shown to be a product of human invention)? Can you see a trend here at all? And yet you seem to be suggesting that the supernatural answer to current gaps is no more or less viable, no more or less likely, than the naturalistic one. A one way 100% record of failure Vs success and yet apparently you see no evidence to suggest any inclination either way.I find that truly incredible.

Hi Domino, When you sign out of your profile page you should get a notification that your profile has been updated. Your signature should then appear in the preview of your posts when you have clicked on the box at the bottom of a reply that says

Show Signature: include your profile signature. Only registered users may have signatures.

​

Signatures are optional for each message.

​

Agreed. However, most negative positions concerning specific deities are evidenced. For example, Zeus is said to cause lightning by throwing down thunderbolts from the sky. Using the scientific method, we have learned that lightning does not come from thunderbolts but from electric charge, which is not something that can be thrown. Therefore, the Zeus that throws down thunderbolts cannot exist.

​

But is that evidence that god/s do not exist or that the interpretation of god/s as including someone who "throws" lightening has been falsified. Does this mean that god/s are not ultimately responsible for lightening occurring when they have created the universe that includes lightening as a common feature on earth?

​

Think of it as a scientific hypothesis testing process: that concept is false so we revise the hypothesis and test it again.

​

The only negative position that truly lacks evidence (and if I'm wrong about this, I'd love for somebody to throw some evidence out there for me) is the position that no supernatural being exists whatsoever, and that the universe was created entirely by natural processes (as opposed to by some divine catalyst).

​

That certainly would qualify as a negative statement. If you claim that this is your personal opinion, rather than a logical or scientific conclusion (rather difficult without evidence), then you are making what I consider a level II claim.

​

RAZD's Concept Scale

1. Zero Confidence Concepts
   1. No evidence, subjective or objective,
   2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible
2. Low Confidence Concepts
   1. Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, but no known contradictory evidence, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid
   2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,
3. High Confidence Concepts
   1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence
   2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

​

Enjoy.

​

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Either your natural explanations are precluding the supernatural ones or you're falsly concluding that the supernatural ones have failed.In Message 147 in the absence of evidence thread, you explain that you're not using natural explanations to preclude supernatural ones so we're left with your claim of 100% failure for supernatural claims to be unfounded.

Do you believe that Thor is ultimately responsible for thunder and lightening CS? Or has Thor as the god of storms been refuted in every practical sense by the scientific explanation for thunder and lightning?Does this mean that we have proven that Thor does not exist? No. But it gives us considerable grounds for concluding that the concept of Thor was a human invention created to fill a gap in human understanding.Seriously which part of any of what I am saying here do you actually disagree with? You seem to agree with all of the steps whilst being determined to disagree with the conclusion.

I dunno. I doubt that the ancient description of Thor is very accurate. Although, they could have been right that god is ultimately responsible for lightning. Any one particular lightning strike we wouldn't know if god caused or not. No. The scientific explanation of electrical charge building up until a spectacular discharge in the form of lightning, for one, doesn't preclude the existance of a supernatural being deciding when and where the charge gets built up so the scientific explanation doesn't say anything towards that.The Thor explanation is more of an attempt to answer why lightning strikes (cause he's pissed) and not and explanation of how lightning is caused physically.So no, I don't think Thor has been refuted by science. He has been made redundant and unecessary and we can forget about him to maintain parsimony, but that isn't really touching on whether or not he actually exists. But being human invention suggests non-existance. The conclusion doesn't follow. It could just as easily be explaned by human intervention... maybe the ancients were revealed an aspect of god and they created explanations of that in the form of Thor being the god of storms.That seems to be more consistant with my experiences and how I've been revealed specs of god that I try to come to an understanding of. Since I'm not just making god-stuff up, I doubt that the ancients were either.

Wud up CS, Come on dude, really? Come on dude, really? There's no need for you to make it up, those that came before you already did an you have faith that they were right.- Oni

Yeah... what's so unbelievable? Swing and a miss.The context is this:

quote:

---

That seems to be more consistant with my experiences and how I've been revealed specs of god that I try to come to an understanding of.

---

I'm referring to my own personal and/or subjective experiences that I haven't made up, not something I've read or heard about.

He asked if you believe Thor is ultimately responsible for thunder and lightening, you said "I dunno" - which means you are on the fence about that. I find that hard to accept, and I think you're just saying that for debating reasons, perhaps to not give up too much of a position on where you stand.And to the point of Thor being disproven by science ... Thing is, Thor wasn't something science was/is trying to disprove; it is trying to explain the origin of thunder and lightening.One of the leading theories was Thor.That theory fails to explain how thunder and lightening works EVEN IF Thor was actually real. We were no closer to understanding how lightening and thunder works when everyone thought/believed/accepted that Thor was responsible.Has thunder and lightening originating from Thor been disproven? That's the question. Also, is the scientific explanation for thunder and lightening adequate, and, does it leave anything out to where some other factor needs to be explained?Given that it has been (as I believe it has, and would suspect you do too), IF the ancients had this explanation, do you believe they would have attributed thunder and lightening to Thor in the first place?For all intent and purposes, Thor was made up, and thus no evidence to disprove his existence can ever be given (how can you disprove something that doesn't exist?) - But him being the source of thunder and lightening CAN be disproven - just as a god creating the universe CAN be disproven.Like I've argued before, we can't disprove the god in question, only the attributes that people have claimed the gods have. Ah, OK, my bad.But... Can you be specific as to what you consider "specs of god"?Can these just be specs of random things that you interpret to by god? How do you determine its god specifically?- OniEdited by onifre, : nada

Yet again I feel the need to state that I am not precluding anything. Why is that soooo difficult for you to accept? But seriously CS do you think that a big blonde ethereal viking bloke with a massive hammer has anything whatsoever to do with the weather? Really?Or is it a gap filling human invention that is no longer needed and which has thus been long since dismissed as myth by rational people? Well with regard to Thor and every other gap filling god the evidence is against you. Conviction isn't evidence and your opinion has no bearing on reality.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.