"He doesn't admit to believing that no God's existence"

Huh?

What is that "small amount of knowledge" that belief in a Christian god requires? How does one acquire that knowledge? With that small amount of knowledge, you can claim to know everything about the universe from the instant it was created up to the present minute? You can know exactly the purpose and plan of life? You know what will happen to you after your death?

Wow. That's quite a claim to make based on a small amount of knowledge. Science knows what it doesn't know. Religion knows everything. But every religion claims to know everything, so obviously, some of them have to be wrong. How do you know yours is right?
 

Thanks for noting the typos Justin.

Believing in something is a positive claim. To have evidence for it, you only need to have a small amount of knowledge.

For instance, if I were to say that I believed that there was Gold in Australia, I would only need to investigate far enough to discover a single bit of gold to support my claim. Compare this with the claim that there is no gold in Australia. In order to be able to support this claim you would need to exhaustively investigate every single part of australia, including below the ground, above the ground, in the water, with the people etc.

Btw, religion does not claim to know everything about the universe. This is a straw man and you would do well not to use it.
 

I know what a Straw Man is. Thanks for the advice. Virtually every religion does claim to know how the universe began (Genesis in your case) and how it all will end (Revelation). Science doesn't go any further than the evidence will allow.

Now, please provide that single nugget of Australian gold which proves the existence of God. If Dawkins is a moron who says that God is a delusion, it should be fairly easy to shoot that claim down with just one single tiny piece of positive proof that God exists. Where is it? The burden of proof is on your side of that argument.
 

I think you are using a bit of a double standard in your definitions Justin.

YEC think that God created the universe, when he created it, but not necessarily how he created it.

Atheists like Dawkins thinks that the universe was self-created or always existent (depending on which denomination you belong to). Those that think it was self-created believe they known when and how (big bang) is happened.

As for the end, YEC have a wide range of views as to when and even how. Revelation is a highly allegorical prophetic book. Considering how the Jews had hundreds of prophecies dating hundreds of years before Jesus turned up and fulfilled all the prophecies and they still didn't pick it, I have no problems saying I have zero idea how the universe will end or when.

The standard atheistic position would be heat-death or the big crunch (the big crunch seems unlikely given the current scientific theories of an accelerating expansion).

I love how you say that "science doesn't go any further than the evidence will allow" (of course restricting the types of evidences to your own preferred set). The big bang theory relies on 96% of the mass of the universe to be invisible in order to make their equations works. Thats some allowance.

To provide you with my nugget, I have had my own supernatural experience that was shared with another person. Neither of us was expecting it. I have seen prayers answered and miracles happen.

I could go into a rational defense of Christianity as well, but these experiences are clear enough evidence for me. And that is an important point. I don't expect yourself or Dawkins to believe in God based on that evidence. However, Dawkins not only doesn't believe in God, he believes in no God and that no-one can have evidence for God. This is why your burden of proof comment was incorrect. He makes a belief statement, not merely stating his lack of belief. Hence the burden of proof is with him.

Now that I have provided my nugget, how about you provide the exhaustive knowledge of the universe so that you can back up Dawkins statements....
 

Or to put things another way. YEC believe they know the one who created the universe, Atheists beleive they know that no-one created the universe.

So even on your two points of creation and end, it is clear that religion doesn't claim to know everything.
 

"To provide you with my nugget, I have had my own supernatural experience that was shared with another person."

Is that standard of evidence acceptable to you? It is not to ANY rationalist.

It's a burden of PROOF not a burden of dreamy delusions.
 

Skuj,
As I said in my comment, I don't expect my experience to be strong evidence for someone else to believe, however a supernatural experience shared with another person that was not being sought or expected is good evidence for the people involved.

Hallucination is an individual experience, hence more than one person experiencing the same thing at the same time means it is not a hallucination. The same goes with trying to explain the occurrence as a dream.

I find it quite interesting that you feel a 'rationalist' should ignore evidence. Such an odd position.
 

"more than one person experiencing the same thing at the same time means it is not a hallucination"

100% wrong... popularity in delusions DO NOT make them true. Obviously. How many people have seen Elvis alive? Doesn't make it true one bit.

Even if you're convinced by your hallucination, that is not acceptable evidence. How many Muslims have talked to their god vs. Christians to theirs. Obviously, at least most of them must be lying.

I'm still with the guy up top:

"Now, please provide that single nugget of Australian gold which proves the existence of God."
 

Skuj,
Please provide evidence that my experience was a delusion.

Please provide evidence that the same hallucination can be seen by multiple people.

Really, all your statements amount to is that any experience of the supernatural is automatically rejected as 'delusion'. This is not rationally evaluating the evidence, but simply the logical fallacy of question begging at it's finest.
 

"Please provide evidence that my experience was a delusion."

A) I can't prove a negative (already covered above)
B) The burden of proof is 100% on you to provide POSITIVE EVIDENCE (which you have not)
C) Provide evidence that there is not a flying spaghetti monster, etc... it's just obviously wrong to ask.

"Please provide evidence that the same hallucination can be seen by multiple people."

A) This is irrelevant to the argument - even shared hallucinations prove NOTHING

**Unverifiable "evidence" (your hallucination) can only be accepted to the extent that it is more improbable than the event it seeks to explain**

B) Already did - Elvis sightings

"Really, all your statements amount to is that any experience of the supernatural is automatically rejected as 'delusion'. This is not rationally evaluating the evidence, but simply the logical fallacy of question begging at it's finest."

You didn't provide ANY evidence to evaluate. You clearly don't understand logic worth a damn, though you would denounce Dawkins for your mis-perceived notions of the same.
 

Skuj...I don't think you understand. I am not trying to provide evidence to convince you or anyone else that the supernatural exists.

I have provided an account of why I believe the supernatural exists. People like Dawkins like to tell others that no one can have a warranted belief in the supernatural, but this is a ridiculously arrogant and nonsense claim.

So lot me explain my experience again. It wasn't an hallucination (as hallucinations are individual experiences and this was shared by another - in this science shows you are the one who is 100% wrong). It also wasn't a case of seeing something that looked like something else (like you elvis sightings or the numerous 'virgin mary in a piece of toast like stories).

Now, as to your comments...You have made the positive claim that my experience was not real. If you have no evidence of this, then perhaps you should quit whilst you are behind.

As I have experienced something convincingly outside the realm of the natural, then this is positive evidence. Due to the nature of the evidence however, I would not expect it to be strong evidence for others (I've never claimed it is). It is however, a clear example of why Richard Dawkins claims that no one can have evidence for the supernatural is absurd.

Now, when you can start comprehending these simple points, perhaps you can start to show your own understanding of logic.
 

"Skuj...I don't think you understand. I am not trying to provide evidence to convince you or anyone else that the supernatural exists."

I understand. You do not (and I will prove it yet again).
And yes, you are.

The original [question]: "Now, please provide that single nugget of Australian gold which proves the existence of God."

And your response: "To provide you with my nugget, I have had my own supernatural experience that was shared with another person."

100% in my favor. Thanks.

[cont'd]
 

So lot me explain my experience again. It wasn't an hallucination (as hallucinations are individual experiences and this was shared by another - in this science shows you are the one who is 100% wrong).

"Halluciantion" was an unthoughful choice of word (as I didn't expect to debate such minutia). What criteria do you define as "shared"? There are tons of examples of large groups of people who will testify to seeing Elvis... that's a "shared" experience too in many ways. The distinction is arbitrary at best.
 

"It also wasn't a case of seeing something that looked like something else (like you elvis sightings or the numerous 'virgin mary in a piece of toast like stories)."

You make a lot of negative statements about your [visions?]. What exactly were they? Provide (at least) strong evidence that they occurred.
 

"Now, as to your comments...You have made the positive claim that my experience was not real. If you have no evidence of this, then perhaps you should quit whilst you are behind."

Yes it is logically imperfect (in a purely theoretical rather than practical sense), but anyone can surely see how Occam's razor LOGICALLY prefers dismissing your ZERO-evidence claim.

To quote a fellow rationalist and atheist:

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
-Christopher Hitchens
 

"As I have experienced something convincingly outside the realm of the natural, then this is positive evidence. Due to the nature of the evidence however, I would not expect it to be strong evidence for others (I've never claimed it is)."

Firstly, that is not evidence in any practical sense of the word. It is personal, unsubstantiated testimony from you. Besides your own ideas, what else could you need evidence for?

If you've flopped to this position, then you never answered the original challenge (though you claimed that you did - see above).

Where's that nugget?
 

"It is however, a clear example of why Richard Dawkins claims that no one can have evidence for the supernatural is absurd."

Well... show me the evidence! Anything at all! Show me some proof of god that couldn't be contradicted by a child.

To address the broader point of this article, Dawkins' position is properly (and correctly) articulated when he has the time. As from The God Delusion:

"That you cannot prove God's nonexistence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything. What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his existence is probable. That is another matter. Some undisprovable
things are sensibly judged far less probable than other undisprovable
things."
 

"Now, when you can start comprehending these simple points, perhaps you can start to show your own understanding of logic."

I've shown you your errors paragraph by paragraph so that you can digest it.

WAITING FOR THAT NUGGET!!! :)
 

Oops... I need to retract the previous statement (untypo-d):

""Hallucination" was an unthoughtful choice of word (as I didn't expect to debate such minutia)."

YOU CALLED YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE A HALLUCINATION! Not even my idea! That screams credibility.

I said "dreamy delusion". Still works for me.

Anyways, back to the NUGGET!
 

Skuj, it seems that you clearly are not interested in truth. As I said in my initial comments and have repeated several times, I do not consider my experience as strong evidence for others. Any quick review of my comments clearly shows this.

As misrepresentations go, yours is obvious and easily caught by anyone bothering to read a post from 7 months ago. That you continue to push for an obviously errornous view of my comments is clearly a sign that you are not serious about truth, but are instead emotionally and irrationally responding to a challenge to your cherished beliefs. More than likely this is out of some deep seated insecurity.

You also seem to misunderstand the concept of 'evidence' nor do you understand that any single historical experience of a person is unable to be well evidenced for other people. For example, try and provide evidence that you visited a particular park on a particular day from 1995. Whilst you may remember it vividly, and you may have even gone there with your dad, there is little you can do provide evidence to others that you did it.

So whilst you may have strong evidence for yourself that you visited the particular park on that particular day, and are indeed warranted in believing it happened, there is little there to warrant other non-involved people's belief.

Your simplistic and errornous reference to occam's razor is just another cheap rhetorical trick and you would do well to avoid it. It is a use that once again reveals your a priori commitment to materialism, as opposed to an open-minded person who evaluates any evidence with an even standard.

Dawkins, and yourself so it seems, have simply tried to define the terms of what is "evidence" to only those things which can support your belief (scientism etc), yet such beliefs as yours are held by faith, not reason.
 

"Skuj, it seems that you clearly are not interested in truth. As I said in my initial comments and have repeated several times, I do not consider my experience as strong evidence for others. Any quick review of my comments clearly shows this."

Blah, blah, blah... I already PROVED that you did USING YOUR OWN WORDS!!!

The original [question]: "Now, please provide that single nugget of Australian gold which proves the existence of God."

And your response: "To provide you with my nugget, I have had my own supernatural experience that was shared with another person."

While your own words may be confusing to you, anyone else reading this will understand.
 

"You also seem to misunderstand the concept of 'evidence' nor do you understand that any single historical experience of a person is unable to be well evidenced for other people. For example, try and provide evidence that you visited a particular park on a particular day from 1995. Whilst you may remember it vividly, and you may have even gone there with your dad, there is little you can do provide evidence to others that you did it."

100% proof? No, I probably could not, but that's irrelevant. Given that the technically correct position on god MUST BE agnosticism (as we can neither prove nor disprove its existence), we're talking about probabilities in practice.

Unverifiable evidence can only be accepted to the extent that it is more improbable than the event it seeks to explain... most people wouldn't require a high standard of evidence for a walk in the park, but you claim to have witnessed godliness by way of hallucination (your words, not mine) so prove it or keep it to yourself.

You can't prove it? Then it's not evidence. Try understanding that. Please... read a science book or something!
 

"Your simplistic and errornous reference to occam's razor is just another cheap rhetorical trick and you would do well to avoid it. It is a use that once again reveals your a priori commitment to materialism, as opposed to an open-minded person who evaluates any evidence with an even standard."

Yeah... that logical bedrock is nothing but a "cheap rhetorical trick".

What freakin' evidence?? You flip-flop on this so often it's going to snap my neck! You provide some "evidence", I evaluate it, you say that it's not meant to be convincing, I dismiss it, and now you tell me evaluate it openly.

Evaluate what? All the evidence virtually proves the non-requirement for god.

There is ZERO evidence for god.

There is ZERO evidence for god.

There is ZERO evidence for god.

(repeat until you understand that)
 

"Dawkins, and yourself so it seems, have simply tried to define the terms of what is "evidence" to only those things which can support your belief (scientism etc), yet such beliefs as yours are held by faith, not reason."

Yeah... us scientists use a lot of faith... it's what makes airplanes fly and drugs work.

This comment is ridiculously bogus. Science has the goals of truth and understanding.

If there was a god, why would we deny it? You have a lot of explaining to do if you want to hold this position.

And yes, I have faith in the scientific method. Faith backed by OVERWHELMING PROOF. Science works.
 

STILL WAITING ON THAT NUGGET!!!
 

Skuj... you seem to be getting a little emotional. Best to calm down and be more rational....

You said...
"Blah, blah, blah... I already PROVED that you did USING YOUR OWN WORDS!!!"

Actually, if you want to look at the full quote, as opposed to your out of context quote, i said
"o provide you with my nugget, I have had my own supernatural experience that was shared with another person. Neither of us was expecting it. I have seen prayers answered and miracles happen.

I could go into a rational defense of Christianity as well, but these experiences are clear enough evidence for me. And that is an important point. I don't expect yourself or Dawkins to believe in God based on that evidence."

This more complete quote clearly shows that I have been holding to the same position consistently and that you have been misrepresenting what I said. That you choose to ignore this seems to indicate a lack of intellectual rigor. That you choose to do so in a place where it is so easily reviewed shows you are not really that wise.

You also seem to lack understanding about walking in the park. The person who went to the park in no way doubts he went to the park. His belief is warranted and supported by the evidence of his experience. Other people may or may not believe he went to the park based on their own ideas and experiences. That is, if someone has lived in the dessert their entire life, they may not think such a place exists and so may not think walking in a park is possible.

The second person's lack of experience with parks in no way diminishes the first persons evidence or experience (for the first person).

Continuing the analogy, your belief seems to be that simply because you haven't seen a park, no else could have either (this is atheism, not agnosticism). Quite clearly, this is an absurd, moronic belief.

Now, for some reason, you lump yourself into 'us scientists', which is odd, as accounting is hardly considered a science.

Perhaps when you have lived more for more years than I have spent in formal study you could start telling me I should go read. Until then, perhaps it is you who should go and read something other than the poor works of a man out of his area like Richard Dawkins (He may have been a good scientist, but he is woeful as a philosopher).

I would suggest you read something like 'What is this thing called science' by Chalmers as a starting point, because it is clear you have studied little of the philosophy of science. Otherwise, you might realise how naive and irrational your comments about science really are.
 

Your response was so inadequate (par for the course) that it's hardly worth replying to, but here goes:

1. Learn what context means. Nothing has been quoted out of context by me:

"To provide you with my nugget, I have had my own supernatural experience that was shared with another person."

vs.

"To provide you with my nugget, I have had my own supernatural experience that was shared with another person. Neither of us was expecting it. I have seen prayers answered and miracles happen. I could go into a rational defense of Christianity as well, but these experiences are clear enough evidence for me. And that is an important point. I don't expect yourself or Dawkins to believe in God based on that evidence."

In response to the query posed*, both responses dodge it quite equally, unless YOU have quoted out of context.

*"Now, please provide that single nugget of Australian gold which proves the existence of God."

The context of this quote is obviously, "proves to everyone" not "proves to yourself". Frankly, duh.
 

2. "That you choose to do so in a place where it is so easily reviewed shows you are not really that wise."

I'm in total agreement. Anyone can easily see that by September 2008, you have yet to address the simple post from February 2007:

Now, please provide that single nugget of Australian gold which proves the existence of God. If Dawkins is a moron who says that God is a delusion, it should be fairly easy to shoot that claim down with just one single tiny piece of positive proof that God exists. Where is it? The burden of proof is on your side of that argument.,

Do you think you have done this? Yes or no?
 

3. "You also seem to lack understanding about walking in the park...

Continuing the analogy, your belief seems to be that simply because you haven't seen a park, no else could have either (this is atheism, not agnosticism). Quite clearly, this is an absurd, moronic belief."

As I already mentioned, and as Dawkins discusses in his book (again):

"That you cannot prove God's nonexistence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything. What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his existence is probable. That is another matter. Some undisprovable
things are sensibly judged far less probable than other undisprovable
things."

To relate this to your park analogy, a park is highly likely based on observable evidence, whereas god is as close to 0% as possible to the point where atheism is basically rounding the number.
 

4. "Now, for some reason, you lump yourself into 'us scientists', which is odd, as accounting is hardly considered a science."

Glad you followed.

Perhaps I should direct you to a dictionary (I used Wiki):

"Science is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works."

Also, I suppose that we can discount Einstein as a scientist because he worked in a patent office? Education may count, but science is an idea, not a degree.
 

5. "Perhaps when you have lived more for more years than I have spent in formal study you could start telling me I should go read. Until then, perhaps it is you who should go and read something other than the poor works of a man out of his area like Richard Dawkins (He may have been a good scientist, but he is woeful as a philosopher).

I would suggest you read something like 'What is this thing called science' by Chalmers as a starting point, because it is clear you have studied little of the philosophy of science. Otherwise, you might realise how naive and irrational your comments about science really are."

Nothing to address here... attack the idea, not the source. Your years of formal study count for nothing in this argument, as your conclusions are simply wrong.

Still waiting for that nugget...
 

6. "Otherwise, you might realise how naive and irrational your comments about science really are."

I was going to leave it at the last comment, but I have to ask, is Stephen Hawking naive and irrational about science too? While he's clearly out of my league, our conclusions on god's non-existence are identical.
 

Ah Skuj, you still haven't grasped things well have you?

The whole point of the post was dealing with how evidence can be seen by one person and not another. Perhaps you should go back and do some basic comprehension courses.

My statements have been consistently in the context of the post, and have highlighted that I did not expect that the professed evidence would convince someone else.

The context that you claimed to have proved using my own words is merely a misrepresentation by you.

I'm am also amazed by your claims to be a scientist, whilst your emotional pleas for 'proof' show quite clearly that you do not understand science. Please understand that 'proof' is not a word properly used in science. Math maybe, but that is it. Science works on observations and hypothesis. And whilst much experimental (or operational if you prefer the term) science works on repeatability, there is much science that does not require repeatability. Try and think through what this means....it means that a single, unrepeatable observation is indeed used as evidence in science. But not only in science, in everyday life, as the park analogy shows, people's beliefs can be warranted by an observation (obviously classing the observation as evidence), even if that observation is not repeatable, shared, or verifiable by others.

I realise you want to cling to the security blanket of your faith, but the simply rub of it is that your arrogant claim that there is zero evidence for god is unsupportable.

I haven't claimed there is a lot of evidence. I haven't claimed there is evidence that is easy for everyone to find. I didn't even claim in the post that anyone had found evidence. I merely claimed that the claim that there cannot be evidence is mind-boggingly, jaw-droppingly moronic. In fact, the only way you could possibly make the claim was if you assume that god doesn't exist (unless you knew everything). But to use that as logic is begging the question. I.e. fallacious.

Seriously? Can you grasp this simply logical concept? Do I need to use smaller words?

I find it amusing you talk of Albert Einstein working in a patent office as somehow addressing my point. Albert Einstein graduated from university with a degree in Physics (not accounting). He published papers in prestigious science journals (not simply writing anti-religious propaganda) whilst working in the patent office.

So what have you done again that qualifies you as a scientist (I know you want to apply the label to yourself to try and pretend you have some sort of authority, but really....)

Seriously, read Chalmers. It isn't a Christian book, it's used as a philosophy of science text book. No need to be scared of learning.
 

People that cling to Dawkins every pencil scratch astound me. What jerks. Way to persuade someone! I had one come find me and harass me on twitter one night. Read this, he said. Read it, I replied. Read this. Read it. Oh and I have read a-z of every other bloviating atheist tome as well. Well, watch these videos. Seen em. Anything else? He left me alone and I still believe in God.
 

Besides The skuj and Grey getting into an argument of misunderstandings and immature exchange of words, let's focus on the real issue here. Mr. Dawkins, what I refer to as an "Evangelical Atheist" is lacking in logic. Upon reading his book "The God Delusion" he is in conflict with basic scientific law. Dawkins, who claims throughout most of the book that there is NO GOD, turns around and then states that he doesn't know if a god exists.

Science has built itself on the premise that there is a god. Newton wrote his law based off of these premises. We are now in an age where scientists refuse to believe in God and therefore are in a constant state of contradiction with Scientific law.

Then we have Scientists such as Francis Collins, who not only is a believer but has made discoveries that no other Biologist could ever dream of making. Including Dawkins. Collins attributes his findings as product of his faith. The founder of the Human Genome Project, he has made much greater discoveries than the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens.

Collins actually has made Dawkins say that there is a good possiblitiy that a supernatural being exists. Science can't explain the supernatural, and God is supernatural.