I can state for a fact there is no apple on my desk based upon simple observation, and if necessary more complex methods of measurement. Yet you seem to strangely insist that lack of evidence does not prove there is no apple upon my desk. The same goes for your arguement in regards to god. I see further down you submit there's no means of disproving or proving god, but how does that suddenly make the arguement more acceptable? By definition, god not existing is a fact. So far your only retort has been "we don't know everything" which is not a rebuttal, it's an appeal to ignorance.
False analogy. An apple is not analogous to an omniscient omnipotent deity. We have DATA which can support the existence or non-existence of the apple. We can test our hypothesis.
To say that it not existing is an indesputable fact is logically questionable. It is not an appeal to ignorance in stating that we dont have enough information to be able to competantly make a factual statement. It would only be an appeal to ignorance if I said that God EXISTS because we dont have the information.
You can have an opinion on the matter, you can even support it with logic, but it is like having an unknown object in a coffee can. We are incapable of knowing, incapable of being able to make a factual statement, until we open the box. But,the can is closed and sealed, and we can only indirectly observe what is in the can, by shaking the can, putting the can in water, etc. You can never come to perfect, FACTUAL certainty as to the nature of the item in the coffee can. You can get to reasonable certainty. you can get to certainty beyond reasonable. But you will never have complete 100% certainty as to the nature of the item.
With things that we have direct evidence for, things become easier. Such as the apple on your desk. or darth vader existing or not. We can find out (eventually) whether darth vader does exist. It will merely take several hundred million years to get to the SW Galaxy ;)
But whenever something must be observed indirectly, 100% certainty is impossible. Therefor, you cannot say with 100% certainty whether or not a deity, which cannot by definition be observed directly, does or does not exist.
Rolling Eyes So from your perspective there is no such thing as facts, eh? No wonder we're not meeting a common ground here.
No, there are such things as facts, but when you are trying to determine truth through indirect observation, you cannot say for certain what those facts are. For example, the heisenberg uncertainty principle. You can never know both the speed and location of an electron at the same time. It doesnt mean that it does not have a specific speed and location at any given time.
How delusionally cute. "No evidence of existence, but it might exist." How does this differ from arguing the existence of other unprovable concepts (like my repeated Vader example)?
Here, lets try an analogy somewhat more mundane than darth vader. Lets try... Fossilized Organism alpha. Now, we have not found the fossil for fossilized organism Alpha. Because of this lack of evidence, is it a fact that Alpha does not exist? Say for the sake of argument that somsone posits the existence of fossilized organism alpha. Can we claim that Alpha never existed based upon a lack of evidence? No. There is the possibility that tomorrow, and amateur fossil collector could stumble upon Alpha.
And remember, I dont believe God exists either. But I also dont think it is possible to know for sure. You know, because a deity is, by definition, an omniscient omnipotent being, who can easily use his powers, and free will to disguise himself. There is an outside chance that one day the deity will reveal itself, riding down from the heavens on celestial war ponies. Will it probably happen... no. In fact the chances of that happening are something close to 1x10^-31st. It is outrageously improbable. But still possible. So, then, you cannot claim that God does not exist, as a 100% accurate factual statement. because there is the outside probability that you are wrong. Unless of course you think you are infallable.
People were then and still are stupid (hence, why the existence of god is still a supposeded 'arguement'). "The Earth is flat" was a belief, not a "fact".
Only post hoc. Contemporary thinkers though of the earth being flat as an indesputable fact. They also though that the universe revolved around the earth. We say it was an erroneous belief now, because new information has shown us better. However, 1000 years from now, someone could look back at you, and think of you as an ignorant child. This is of cours after God proved his esistence by riding down from the heavens in an flaming chariot, driven forth by celestial war ponies and followed by his angelic host... There is that outside cance. WHich is what the scientific method is all about. Holding out the possibility that new evidence will come along to prove you wrong. Now, you have probably enver studied the philosophy of science in depth. I suggest you read a bit of Hume.
I hold no illusions about being infalliable. However, insisting "god might exist" is no different than insisting "Darth Vader might exist". I naturally assert Vader doesn't exist as a fact (as most rational persons would agree), yet with the god concept I'm supposed to be hesistant? Explain why.
I refer back the coffee can analogy. Darth vader is potentially within our ability to observe directly. We can potentially know with complete certainty whether darth vader exists. It is not the same with something we must observe indirectly. We can be 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that god does not exist. But still cannot say with 100% certainty that he does not.
I'll admit the scientific method cannot test subjects beyond it's capabilities to test. Therefore, I assume you will readily admit "Darth Vader exists" is a possibility? And that "Darth Vader doesn't exists" is not a fact? Otherwise, you're employing a double standard where the concept of 'god' is concerned.
Well for one, darth vader is a false analogy. Becayse we KNOW darth vader to be a deliberatly fictional creation. Because we can ask the person who created darth vader.
So your analogy is false anyway. Now change darth vader to a race of tentacle monsters, and specify a time and place. And yes, we can know for sure. because they can in principle, be directly observed. A deity, cannot be directly observed. Thus we cannot know one way or the other. It is a safe assumption that said deity is non-existant, but that save assumption does not make it indesputable fact along the lines of 2+2=4
Inability to even test a subject somehow makes it more of a possibility than a non existent car? Now you're really grasping.
No, it means that we cant know one way or the other. it means it is not observable. Of course, for all we know there could be 7 other spatial dimensions that we cannot observe with current technology.
By your 'reasoning' then, anything is possible to exist, regardless of lack of evidence, consistency with the known universe, logic or reason. Which means to be consistent with your position, you have to admit "Darth Vader might exist". Denying so proves your arguement is biased and employing double standards in regards to 'god'. Agreeing so will give me reason to laugh at you.
Dude, there is a tiny tiny tiny chance that I could be shunted 6 feet away sponteneously. I would have to sit here and wait for the better part of eternity, but thanks to QM it could POTENTIALLY happen. So yes, there is a potential that a great many seemingly impossible things can happen. The probability is just so low that you have several dozen to over 100 zeroes right of the decimal point before you get close to a single non-zero digit
BAD BEN! BAD FORMAT BREAKING! Deleted some decimal places for the good of my sanity.
So from your perspective there is no such thing as facts, eh? No wonder we're not meeting a common ground here.