We don’t know if there are gods, or a God

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone thinks they know but they don't. If there is a god/s, maybe its not about control over our lives, but just the existence of spiritual energy/force.

You are correct, no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that god does or does not exist.

However, I can use reason and logic to evaluate the information we do have available to make a decision.

Upon review, in my opinion, god does not exist.

I would also say that if you have reduced god down to the bare minimum possible for belief of "spiritual energ/force", why bother believing at all?

We have reasonable, natural ideas for many of life's big questions. They are not 100% complete, and odds are likely we may never have full knowledge.

Seeking out new information to help understand our place in the universe does not require god in any shape or form, however you may want to define it or call it.

Just like no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Incorrect. This is a bad anology.

I could put cameras with multiple sensors around my house to check if they were only invisible in the visual spectrum or in all frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. The cameras would directly record the scissors in the house. One could also tie them down and/or put an alarm around them.

This is testable which means we can gather data to help make a determination one way or another.

No, they could alter camera footage. Space monkeys are very sneaky.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Failed logic once again. You are making a falsifiable claim. It can be disputed as you can establish valid experiments to collect data.

So yes, I can say with 100% certainty that invisible space monkeys are NOT undertaking the actions you are claiming.

Also, we have reduced god(s) to such an inconsequential role, why would believing change anything?

We have natural explanations that are backed up by logic, experiment, and evidence. There is no need for god(s).

No, there is no evidence. No experiment that will 100% rule it out.

Wrong again.

Really, try working on your critical thinking skills. Your invisible space monkeys is a disprovable claim. Yes, it can be ruled out. A single experiment may not be enough data, but running enough trials will result in data that is statistically significant. Which, it will rule them out.

Also, moving the goalposts does not change the facts. This is exactly what theists try to do in the face of science, reason, and evidence.

The claim was “100% absolute certainty”, not “statistically significant”.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Wrong again. You are conflating two posts.

I can say with 100% certainty that your invisible space monkeys do not sneak into my house at night to hide all my scissors.

You seem to not comprehend how evidence and logical conclusions work.

You are making a falsefiable claim. A method of proving that has been presented and you are the one that cannot accept it.

You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

You have modified the scenario with very specific conditions/assumptions designed to fail your test.

That doesn’t prove they don’t exist outside of those specific conditions. You would have to observe all scissors all of the time and the monkeys couldn’t be invisible.

It’s unfalsifiable.

No one modified sh!t. You are trying to move the goalposts.

PP said, quote "No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒"

This quoted claim was disputed. A poster asserted yes, they can say 100% with absolute certainty that their scissors in their house are not being hidden by invisible space monkeys.

You are continuing to ignore valid debunking of your ridiculous claim.

And, as also indicated previously, you dont seem to understand how a claim, evidence, logic, and reason work together.

No, the PP can’t claim falsity from lack of proof. The test doesn’t cover all possible scenarios. Any “evidence” would be incomplete.

It’s unfalsifiable.

A test does not have to cover all scenarios.

The burden of proof lies with the assertion.

Until you present evidence FOR the existence of said monkeys and their antics, it is 100% certain they dont exist.

So without evidence of gods, you are 100% certain they don’t exist?

What are you trying to accomplish by continuing to move the goalposts?

First, it was invisible space monkeys in "my" home hiding scissors. Then it was in neighbors or others after I asserted with 100% complete certainty they weren't hiding my scissors.

Now, you are trying to make it some broader philosophy on god?

God does not exist. I am 100% certain.

Are you the cowardly non-believer who claims they only describe themself as agnostic to avoid taking an actual position?

You may be 100% certain about the monkeys but that’s not based on “evidence”. The test doesn’t cover all possible scenarios - any “evidence” would be incomplete.

You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

And you are definitely confusing posters.

Yes, I do have evidence. I have my daily experiences where this has never happened. I could start to document it so that I would have hard data, but that is completely unnecessary to countering your bogus idea.

And it is false unless you can present proof to the contrary.

Go ahead and do so.

You are adding assumptions. Moving the goalposts, so to speak. You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

I didn't claim that they exist. And, according the agnostic clown, you can't claim with 100% absolute certainty that they don't.

Huh? I'm trying to follow and respond to you, but you are not making sense.

In this specific scenario, invisible space monkeys are not hiding scissors in my home or any others. Its an absurd premise and easily debunked.

It is absurd, but not easily debunked. Just like many other absurd concepts.

Elaborate on why you think its not easily debunked?

It’s tough to have “evidence” of NOT seeing something invisible.

You are making a major error.

If your invisible space monkeys (ISM) are hiding scissors, that very act is something that can be measured. Also, you appear to only make a claim of the visible spectrum. Do your ISMs have no impact throughout the entire electromagnetic spectrum?

Lastly, you are the one that made the claim. Until you present evidence to the contrary (positive evidence), then it is 100% certain that they dont exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone thinks they know but they don't. If there is a god/s, maybe its not about control over our lives, but just the existence of spiritual energy/force.

You are correct, no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that god does or does not exist.

However, I can use reason and logic to evaluate the information we do have available to make a decision.

Upon review, in my opinion, god does not exist.

I would also say that if you have reduced god down to the bare minimum possible for belief of "spiritual energ/force", why bother believing at all?

We have reasonable, natural ideas for many of life's big questions. They are not 100% complete, and odds are likely we may never have full knowledge.

Seeking out new information to help understand our place in the universe does not require god in any shape or form, however you may want to define it or call it.

Just like no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Incorrect. This is a bad anology.

I could put cameras with multiple sensors around my house to check if they were only invisible in the visual spectrum or in all frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. The cameras would directly record the scissors in the house. One could also tie them down and/or put an alarm around them.

This is testable which means we can gather data to help make a determination one way or another.

No, they could alter camera footage. Space monkeys are very sneaky.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Failed logic once again. You are making a falsifiable claim. It can be disputed as you can establish valid experiments to collect data.

So yes, I can say with 100% certainty that invisible space monkeys are NOT undertaking the actions you are claiming.

Also, we have reduced god(s) to such an inconsequential role, why would believing change anything?

We have natural explanations that are backed up by logic, experiment, and evidence. There is no need for god(s).

No, there is no evidence. No experiment that will 100% rule it out.

Wrong again.

Really, try working on your critical thinking skills. Your invisible space monkeys is a disprovable claim. Yes, it can be ruled out. A single experiment may not be enough data, but running enough trials will result in data that is statistically significant. Which, it will rule them out.

Also, moving the goalposts does not change the facts. This is exactly what theists try to do in the face of science, reason, and evidence.

The claim was “100% absolute certainty”, not “statistically significant”.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Wrong again. You are conflating two posts.

I can say with 100% certainty that your invisible space monkeys do not sneak into my house at night to hide all my scissors.

You seem to not comprehend how evidence and logical conclusions work.

You are making a falsefiable claim. A method of proving that has been presented and you are the one that cannot accept it.

You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

You have modified the scenario with very specific conditions/assumptions designed to fail your test.

That doesn’t prove they don’t exist outside of those specific conditions. You would have to observe all scissors all of the time and the monkeys couldn’t be invisible.

It’s unfalsifiable.

No one modified sh!t. You are trying to move the goalposts.

PP said, quote "No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒"

This quoted claim was disputed. A poster asserted yes, they can say 100% with absolute certainty that their scissors in their house are not being hidden by invisible space monkeys.

You are continuing to ignore valid debunking of your ridiculous claim.

And, as also indicated previously, you dont seem to understand how a claim, evidence, logic, and reason work together.

No, the PP can’t claim falsity from lack of proof. The test doesn’t cover all possible scenarios. Any “evidence” would be incomplete.

It’s unfalsifiable.

A test does not have to cover all scenarios.

The burden of proof lies with the assertion.

Until you present evidence FOR the existence of said monkeys and their antics, it is 100% certain they dont exist.

So without evidence of gods, you are 100% certain they don’t exist?

What are you trying to accomplish by continuing to move the goalposts?

First, it was invisible space monkeys in "my" home hiding scissors. Then it was in neighbors or others after I asserted with 100% complete certainty they weren't hiding my scissors.

Now, you are trying to make it some broader philosophy on god?

God does not exist. I am 100% certain.

Are you the cowardly non-believer who claims they only describe themself as agnostic to avoid taking an actual position?

You may be 100% certain about the monkeys but that’s not based on “evidence”. The test doesn’t cover all possible scenarios - any “evidence” would be incomplete.

You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

And you are definitely confusing posters.

Yes, I do have evidence. I have my daily experiences where this has never happened. I could start to document it so that I would have hard data, but that is completely unnecessary to countering your bogus idea.

And it is false unless you can present proof to the contrary.

Go ahead and do so.

You are adding assumptions. Moving the goalposts, so to speak. You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

I didn't claim that they exist. And, according the agnostic clown, you can't claim with 100% absolute certainty that they don't.

Huh? I'm trying to follow and respond to you, but you are not making sense.

In this specific scenario, invisible space monkeys are not hiding scissors in my home or any others. Its an absurd premise and easily debunked.

It is absurd, but not easily debunked. Just like many other absurd concepts.

Elaborate on why you think its not easily debunked?

It’s tough to have “evidence” of NOT seeing something invisible.

You are making a major error.

If your invisible space monkeys (ISM) are hiding scissors, that very act is something that can be measured. Also, you appear to only make a claim of the visible spectrum. Do your ISMs have no impact throughout the entire electromagnetic spectrum?

Lastly, you are the one that made the claim. Until you present evidence to the contrary (positive evidence), then it is 100% certain that they dont exist.

This is all so stupid.

Have you people never read a book about this topic? They’ve existed for a really long time, and some written in the last few decades have been quite influential.

Have you never watched “The Atheist Experience” videos, or similar ones which go through the premises, presuppositions, and laws of logic? Do you know they start with god claims needing to define the god? If I define god as my coffee cup in front of me, then god definitely exists, but that is a useless definition to most people.

What they don’t do is make claims without evidence. You can say that the Christian god as described in the Bible likely does not exist as there is insufficient evidence for it, and it may even be logically impossible (it is, IMHO) but you can’t enter an unsupported claim into the discussion because then the rules change and the theist gets to as well. You even the playing field between logical and illogical, and that is not good, and it is what most theists want - just as I suspect Mr. Troll in this thread wants.

There is a difference between belief and knowledge, which is generally considered a subset of belief with a different (and higher) standard. This is a simple but important concept that must be understood to have a reasonable discussion about supernatural phenomena.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone thinks they know but they don't. If there is a god/s, maybe its not about control over our lives, but just the existence of spiritual energy/force.

You are correct, no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that god does or does not exist.

However, I can use reason and logic to evaluate the information we do have available to make a decision.

Upon review, in my opinion, god does not exist.

I would also say that if you have reduced god down to the bare minimum possible for belief of "spiritual energ/force", why bother believing at all?

We have reasonable, natural ideas for many of life's big questions. They are not 100% complete, and odds are likely we may never have full knowledge.

Seeking out new information to help understand our place in the universe does not require god in any shape or form, however you may want to define it or call it.

Just like no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Incorrect. This is a bad anology.

I could put cameras with multiple sensors around my house to check if they were only invisible in the visual spectrum or in all frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. The cameras would directly record the scissors in the house. One could also tie them down and/or put an alarm around them.

This is testable which means we can gather data to help make a determination one way or another.

No, they could alter camera footage. Space monkeys are very sneaky.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Failed logic once again. You are making a falsifiable claim. It can be disputed as you can establish valid experiments to collect data.

So yes, I can say with 100% certainty that invisible space monkeys are NOT undertaking the actions you are claiming.

Also, we have reduced god(s) to such an inconsequential role, why would believing change anything?

We have natural explanations that are backed up by logic, experiment, and evidence. There is no need for god(s).

No, there is no evidence. No experiment that will 100% rule it out.

Wrong again.

Really, try working on your critical thinking skills. Your invisible space monkeys is a disprovable claim. Yes, it can be ruled out. A single experiment may not be enough data, but running enough trials will result in data that is statistically significant. Which, it will rule them out.

Also, moving the goalposts does not change the facts. This is exactly what theists try to do in the face of science, reason, and evidence.

The claim was “100% absolute certainty”, not “statistically significant”.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Wrong again. You are conflating two posts.

I can say with 100% certainty that your invisible space monkeys do not sneak into my house at night to hide all my scissors.

You seem to not comprehend how evidence and logical conclusions work.

You are making a falsefiable claim. A method of proving that has been presented and you are the one that cannot accept it.

You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

You have modified the scenario with very specific conditions/assumptions designed to fail your test.

That doesn’t prove they don’t exist outside of those specific conditions. You would have to observe all scissors all of the time and the monkeys couldn’t be invisible.

It’s unfalsifiable.

No one modified sh!t. You are trying to move the goalposts.

PP said, quote "No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒"

This quoted claim was disputed. A poster asserted yes, they can say 100% with absolute certainty that their scissors in their house are not being hidden by invisible space monkeys.

You are continuing to ignore valid debunking of your ridiculous claim.

And, as also indicated previously, you dont seem to understand how a claim, evidence, logic, and reason work together.

No, the PP can’t claim falsity from lack of proof. The test doesn’t cover all possible scenarios. Any “evidence” would be incomplete.

It’s unfalsifiable.

A test does not have to cover all scenarios.

The burden of proof lies with the assertion.

Until you present evidence FOR the existence of said monkeys and their antics, it is 100% certain they dont exist.

So without evidence of gods, you are 100% certain they don’t exist?

What are you trying to accomplish by continuing to move the goalposts?

First, it was invisible space monkeys in "my" home hiding scissors. Then it was in neighbors or others after I asserted with 100% complete certainty they weren't hiding my scissors.

Now, you are trying to make it some broader philosophy on god?

God does not exist. I am 100% certain.

Are you the cowardly non-believer who claims they only describe themself as agnostic to avoid taking an actual position?

You may be 100% certain about the monkeys but that’s not based on “evidence”. The test doesn’t cover all possible scenarios - any “evidence” would be incomplete.

You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

And you are definitely confusing posters.

Yes, I do have evidence. I have my daily experiences where this has never happened. I could start to document it so that I would have hard data, but that is completely unnecessary to countering your bogus idea.

And it is false unless you can present proof to the contrary.

Go ahead and do so.

You are adding assumptions. Moving the goalposts, so to speak. You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

I didn't claim that they exist. And, according the agnostic clown, you can't claim with 100% absolute certainty that they don't.

Huh? I'm trying to follow and respond to you, but you are not making sense.

In this specific scenario, invisible space monkeys are not hiding scissors in my home or any others. Its an absurd premise and easily debunked.

It is absurd, but not easily debunked. Just like many other absurd concepts.

Elaborate on why you think its not easily debunked?

It’s tough to have “evidence” of NOT seeing something invisible.

You are making a major error.

If your invisible space monkeys (ISM) are hiding scissors, that very act is something that can be measured. Also, you appear to only make a claim of the visible spectrum. Do your ISMs have no impact throughout the entire electromagnetic spectrum?

Lastly, you are the one that made the claim. Until you present evidence to the contrary (positive evidence), then it is 100% certain that they dont exist.

If you need to make assumptions to fail your “test” then it’s not easily debunked.

I didn't claim that they exist. And, according the agnostic clown, you can't claim with 100% absolute certainty that they don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone thinks they know but they don't. If there is a god/s, maybe its not about control over our lives, but just the existence of spiritual energy/force.

You are correct, no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that god does or does not exist.

However, I can use reason and logic to evaluate the information we do have available to make a decision.

Upon review, in my opinion, god does not exist.

I would also say that if you have reduced god down to the bare minimum possible for belief of "spiritual energ/force", why bother believing at all?

We have reasonable, natural ideas for many of life's big questions. They are not 100% complete, and odds are likely we may never have full knowledge.

Seeking out new information to help understand our place in the universe does not require god in any shape or form, however you may want to define it or call it.

Just like no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Incorrect. This is a bad anology.

I could put cameras with multiple sensors around my house to check if they were only invisible in the visual spectrum or in all frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. The cameras would directly record the scissors in the house. One could also tie them down and/or put an alarm around them.

This is testable which means we can gather data to help make a determination one way or another.

No, they could alter camera footage. Space monkeys are very sneaky.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Failed logic once again. You are making a falsifiable claim. It can be disputed as you can establish valid experiments to collect data.

So yes, I can say with 100% certainty that invisible space monkeys are NOT undertaking the actions you are claiming.

Also, we have reduced god(s) to such an inconsequential role, why would believing change anything?

We have natural explanations that are backed up by logic, experiment, and evidence. There is no need for god(s).

No, there is no evidence. No experiment that will 100% rule it out.

Wrong again.

Really, try working on your critical thinking skills. Your invisible space monkeys is a disprovable claim. Yes, it can be ruled out. A single experiment may not be enough data, but running enough trials will result in data that is statistically significant. Which, it will rule them out.

Also, moving the goalposts does not change the facts. This is exactly what theists try to do in the face of science, reason, and evidence.

The claim was “100% absolute certainty”, not “statistically significant”.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Wrong again. You are conflating two posts.

I can say with 100% certainty that your invisible space monkeys do not sneak into my house at night to hide all my scissors.

You seem to not comprehend how evidence and logical conclusions work.

You are making a falsefiable claim. A method of proving that has been presented and you are the one that cannot accept it.

You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

You have modified the scenario with very specific conditions/assumptions designed to fail your test.

That doesn’t prove they don’t exist outside of those specific conditions. You would have to observe all scissors all of the time and the monkeys couldn’t be invisible.

It’s unfalsifiable.

No one modified sh!t. You are trying to move the goalposts.

PP said, quote "No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒"

This quoted claim was disputed. A poster asserted yes, they can say 100% with absolute certainty that their scissors in their house are not being hidden by invisible space monkeys.

You are continuing to ignore valid debunking of your ridiculous claim.

And, as also indicated previously, you dont seem to understand how a claim, evidence, logic, and reason work together.

No, the PP can’t claim falsity from lack of proof. The test doesn’t cover all possible scenarios. Any “evidence” would be incomplete.

It’s unfalsifiable.

A test does not have to cover all scenarios.

The burden of proof lies with the assertion.

Until you present evidence FOR the existence of said monkeys and their antics, it is 100% certain they dont exist.

So without evidence of gods, you are 100% certain they don’t exist?

What are you trying to accomplish by continuing to move the goalposts?

First, it was invisible space monkeys in "my" home hiding scissors. Then it was in neighbors or others after I asserted with 100% complete certainty they weren't hiding my scissors.

Now, you are trying to make it some broader philosophy on god?

God does not exist. I am 100% certain.

Are you the cowardly non-believer who claims they only describe themself as agnostic to avoid taking an actual position?

You may be 100% certain about the monkeys but that’s not based on “evidence”. The test doesn’t cover all possible scenarios - any “evidence” would be incomplete.

You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

And you are definitely confusing posters.

Yes, I do have evidence. I have my daily experiences where this has never happened. I could start to document it so that I would have hard data, but that is completely unnecessary to countering your bogus idea.

And it is false unless you can present proof to the contrary.

Go ahead and do so.

You are adding assumptions. Moving the goalposts, so to speak. You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

I didn't claim that they exist. And, according the agnostic clown, you can't claim with 100% absolute certainty that they don't.

Huh? I'm trying to follow and respond to you, but you are not making sense.

In this specific scenario, invisible space monkeys are not hiding scissors in my home or any others. Its an absurd premise and easily debunked.

It is absurd, but not easily debunked. Just like many other absurd concepts.

Elaborate on why you think its not easily debunked?

It’s tough to have “evidence” of NOT seeing something invisible.

You are making a major error.

If your invisible space monkeys (ISM) are hiding scissors, that very act is something that can be measured. Also, you appear to only make a claim of the visible spectrum. Do your ISMs have no impact throughout the entire electromagnetic spectrum?

Lastly, you are the one that made the claim. Until you present evidence to the contrary (positive evidence), then it is 100% certain that they dont exist.

If you need to make assumptions to fail your “test” then it’s not easily debunked.

I didn't claim that they exist. And, according the agnostic clown, you can't claim with 100% absolute certainty that they don't.

What assumption was made?

Just admit it was a bad proposal. And yes, an experiment to collect data has already been presented. That data would debunk it handily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone thinks they know but they don't. If there is a god/s, maybe its not about control over our lives, but just the existence of spiritual energy/force.

You are correct, no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that god does or does not exist.

However, I can use reason and logic to evaluate the information we do have available to make a decision.

Upon review, in my opinion, god does not exist.

I would also say that if you have reduced god down to the bare minimum possible for belief of "spiritual energ/force", why bother believing at all?

We have reasonable, natural ideas for many of life's big questions. They are not 100% complete, and odds are likely we may never have full knowledge.

Seeking out new information to help understand our place in the universe does not require god in any shape or form, however you may want to define it or call it.

Just like no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Incorrect. This is a bad anology.

I could put cameras with multiple sensors around my house to check if they were only invisible in the visual spectrum or in all frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. The cameras would directly record the scissors in the house. One could also tie them down and/or put an alarm around them.

This is testable which means we can gather data to help make a determination one way or another.

No, they could alter camera footage. Space monkeys are very sneaky.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Failed logic once again. You are making a falsifiable claim. It can be disputed as you can establish valid experiments to collect data.

So yes, I can say with 100% certainty that invisible space monkeys are NOT undertaking the actions you are claiming.

Also, we have reduced god(s) to such an inconsequential role, why would believing change anything?

We have natural explanations that are backed up by logic, experiment, and evidence. There is no need for god(s).

No, there is no evidence. No experiment that will 100% rule it out.

Wrong again.

Really, try working on your critical thinking skills. Your invisible space monkeys is a disprovable claim. Yes, it can be ruled out. A single experiment may not be enough data, but running enough trials will result in data that is statistically significant. Which, it will rule them out.

Also, moving the goalposts does not change the facts. This is exactly what theists try to do in the face of science, reason, and evidence.

The claim was “100% absolute certainty”, not “statistically significant”.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Wrong again. You are conflating two posts.

I can say with 100% certainty that your invisible space monkeys do not sneak into my house at night to hide all my scissors.

You seem to not comprehend how evidence and logical conclusions work.

You are making a falsefiable claim. A method of proving that has been presented and you are the one that cannot accept it.

You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

You have modified the scenario with very specific conditions/assumptions designed to fail your test.

That doesn’t prove they don’t exist outside of those specific conditions. You would have to observe all scissors all of the time and the monkeys couldn’t be invisible.

It’s unfalsifiable.

No one modified sh!t. You are trying to move the goalposts.

PP said, quote "No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒"

This quoted claim was disputed. A poster asserted yes, they can say 100% with absolute certainty that their scissors in their house are not being hidden by invisible space monkeys.

You are continuing to ignore valid debunking of your ridiculous claim.

And, as also indicated previously, you dont seem to understand how a claim, evidence, logic, and reason work together.

No, the PP can’t claim falsity from lack of proof. The test doesn’t cover all possible scenarios. Any “evidence” would be incomplete.

It’s unfalsifiable.

A test does not have to cover all scenarios.

The burden of proof lies with the assertion.

Until you present evidence FOR the existence of said monkeys and their antics, it is 100% certain they dont exist.

So without evidence of gods, you are 100% certain they don’t exist?

What are you trying to accomplish by continuing to move the goalposts?

First, it was invisible space monkeys in "my" home hiding scissors. Then it was in neighbors or others after I asserted with 100% complete certainty they weren't hiding my scissors.

Now, you are trying to make it some broader philosophy on god?

God does not exist. I am 100% certain.

Are you the cowardly non-believer who claims they only describe themself as agnostic to avoid taking an actual position?

You may be 100% certain about the monkeys but that’s not based on “evidence”. The test doesn’t cover all possible scenarios - any “evidence” would be incomplete.

You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

And you are definitely confusing posters.

Yes, I do have evidence. I have my daily experiences where this has never happened. I could start to document it so that I would have hard data, but that is completely unnecessary to countering your bogus idea.

And it is false unless you can present proof to the contrary.

Go ahead and do so.

You are adding assumptions. Moving the goalposts, so to speak. You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

I didn't claim that they exist. And, according the agnostic clown, you can't claim with 100% absolute certainty that they don't.

Huh? I'm trying to follow and respond to you, but you are not making sense.

In this specific scenario, invisible space monkeys are not hiding scissors in my home or any others. Its an absurd premise and easily debunked.

It is absurd, but not easily debunked. Just like many other absurd concepts.

Elaborate on why you think its not easily debunked?

It’s tough to have “evidence” of NOT seeing something invisible.

You are making a major error.

If your invisible space monkeys (ISM) are hiding scissors, that very act is something that can be measured. Also, you appear to only make a claim of the visible spectrum. Do your ISMs have no impact throughout the entire electromagnetic spectrum?

Lastly, you are the one that made the claim. Until you present evidence to the contrary (positive evidence), then it is 100% certain that they dont exist.

If you need to make assumptions to fail your “test” then it’s not easily debunked.

I didn't claim that they exist. And, according the agnostic clown, you can't claim with 100% absolute certainty that they don't.

What assumption was made?

Just admit it was a bad proposal. And yes, an experiment to collect data has already been presented. That data would debunk it handily.

Assumptions: that they aren’t fully “invisible”. That whatever date/time windows you collect data represent all days/times. Etc.

The point was that if something can theoretically evade detection and you have no proof one way or another, can you say with 100% certainty that it doesn’t exist? The evangelical agnostic PP says no.
No matter how absurd.

[Anonymous]

What you are missing is that even if your ISMs are undetectable, their interactions with the world are detectable. Sticking with your scenario, the scissors are observable. If they suddenly start moving under some unknown force (or if they suddenly dissappear- say your ISM has a hand fully wrapped around it) that is observable. What is observable is measurable which means we can collect data.

Also, we dont have to observe all scissors in all households in the entire world all the time. We only need a statically representative sampling.

Thus, this is why your scenario was a bad thought experiment in the first place.

If you are trying to make a broader point about god, the same applies. We have natural explanations that dont require any input from some god being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What you are missing is that even if your ISMs are undetectable, their interactions with the world are detectable. Sticking with your scenario, the scissors are observable. If they suddenly start moving under some unknown force (or if they suddenly dissappear- say your ISM has a hand fully wrapped around it) that is observable. What is observable is measurable which means we can collect data.

Also, we dont have to observe all scissors in all households in the entire world all the time. We only need a statically representative sampling.

Thus, this is why your scenario was a bad thought experiment in the first place.

If you are trying to make a broader point about god, the same applies. We have natural explanations that dont require any input from some god being.

Dude, it’s not that deep. The main point was they were undetectable. The disappearing scissors were tongue-in-cheek.

The discussion was around how it’s hard to “prove” a negative. So if you don’t have any evidence showing that something doesn’t exist, can you say with 100% certainty that they don’t exist?

I don’t personally need “evidence” to say that certain absurd things don’t exist. Like ISMs, FSM, gods, etc. But apparently other people do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you are missing is that even if your ISMs are undetectable, their interactions with the world are detectable. Sticking with your scenario, the scissors are observable. If they suddenly start moving under some unknown force (or if they suddenly dissappear- say your ISM has a hand fully wrapped around it) that is observable. What is observable is measurable which means we can collect data.

Also, we dont have to observe all scissors in all households in the entire world all the time. We only need a statically representative sampling.

Thus, this is why your scenario was a bad thought experiment in the first place.

If you are trying to make a broader point about god, the same applies. We have natural explanations that dont require any input from some god being.

Dude, it’s not that deep. The main point was they were undetectable. The disappearing scissors were tongue-in-cheek.

The discussion was around how it’s hard to “prove” a negative. So if you don’t have any evidence showing that something doesn’t exist, can you say with 100% certainty that they don’t exist?

I don’t personally need “evidence” to say that certain absurd things don’t exist. Like ISMs, FSM, gods, etc. But apparently other people do.

Yes.

If there is zero evidence for something, then the default position is that it doesn't exist. The buren of proof lies in making a positive claim FOR something.

Unless and until evidence is brought forward to affirm a claim, it matters not what anyone may believe to be.

[Anonymous]

No matter what we learn about the creation of the universe, there remains in answered questions, in the end there will only be one unanswered question. But the most likely answer to that question will be God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No matter what we learn about the creation of the universe, there remains in answered questions, in the end there will only be one unanswered question. But the most likely answer to that question will be God.

For people who need a placeholder until our knowledge of the world around us catches up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No matter what we learn about the creation of the universe, there remains in answered questions, in the end there will only be one unanswered question. But the most likely answer to that question will be God.

LOL. Fail. No.

Science has reduced god to such an inconsequential role, that its amazing that people like you are still clinging to the last vestiges of ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what we learn about the creation of the universe, there remains in answered questions, in the end there will only be one unanswered question. But the most likely answer to that question will be God.

LOL. Fail. No.

Science has reduced god to such an inconsequential role, that its amazing that people like you are still clinging to the last vestiges of ignorance.

They either believe the Bible is the innerant word of God or that only a God can explain the cosmos. 🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what we learn about the creation of the universe, there remains in answered questions, in the end there will only be one unanswered question. But the most likely answer to that question will be God.

LOL. Fail. No.

Science has reduced god to such an inconsequential role, that its amazing that people like you are still clinging to the last vestiges of ignorance.

They either believe the Bible is the innerant word of God or that only a God can explain the cosmos. 🙄

You just make absurd shit up so you can snark about it. Spend your enormous intellectual energy researching and writing a book called "Statistics for Atheists" why don't ya?

Thank you for demonstrating the ignorance and thought processes of a believer!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what we learn about the creation of the universe, there remains in answered questions, in the end there will only be one unanswered question. But the most likely answer to that question will be God.

LOL. Fail. No.

Science has reduced god to such an inconsequential role, that its amazing that people like you are still clinging to the last vestiges of ignorance.

They either believe the Bible is the innerant word of God or that only a God can explain the cosmos. 🙄

Thank you for demonstrating the naive stereotypes and overgeneralizations you have about believers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what we learn about the creation of the universe, there remains in answered questions, in the end there will only be one unanswered question. But the most likely answer to that question will be God.

LOL. Fail. No.

Science has reduced god to such an inconsequential role, that its amazing that people like you are still clinging to the last vestiges of ignorance.

They either believe the Bible is the innerant word of God or that only a God can explain the cosmos. 🙄

Thank you for demonstrating the naive stereotypes and overgeneralizations you have about believers.

Present your argument for why you think it's naive.