Lack of evidence

I am merely exploring an argument against religious belief.

It seems that for an individual that holds religious belief, and claims to have had a spiritual/religious experience, a statement by the detractor saying God (or other belief) does not exist due to lack of evidence is an absurd argument. Given this, what is the purpose of such an argument's use when discussing the topic with such an individual?

Objectively looking at the discussion, and holding that both sides view the evidence they claim as factual, is such an argument valid? Or can it be viewed as anything other than "he said, she said"?

I am unable to go on-line and pursue these discussions as regularly as I once was able, but I will check this thread from time to time and perhaps will have time to respond, perhaps not. Just interested in the possible discussion here.

To one who holds that God does not exist, citing a religious or spiritual experience as evidence of the existence of God is an equally absurd argument. "Given this, what is the purpose of such an argument's use when discussing the topic with such an individual?"

LOL!

Originally posted by Regret
Objectively looking at the discussion, and holding that both sides view the evidence they claim as factual, is such an argument valid? Or can it be viewed as anything other than "he said, she said"?

Objectively looking at the discussion one could be verified, if it actually happened.

Originally posted by Regret
I am merely exploring an argument against religious belief.

It seems that for an individual that holds religious belief, and claims to have had a spiritual/religious experience, a statement by the detractor saying God (or other belief) does not exist due to lack of evidence is an absurd argument. Given this, what is the purpose of such an argument's use when discussing the topic with such an individual?

Objectively looking at the discussion, and holding that both sides view the evidence they claim as factual, is such an argument valid? Or can it be viewed as anything other than "he said, she said"?

I am unable to go on-line and pursue these discussions as regularly as I once was able, but I will check this thread from time to time and perhaps will have time to respond, perhaps not. Just interested in the possible discussion here.

The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence has to be to support the claim, and the claim of an interaction with a god is a very extraordinary claim. Ordinary evidence, like I witness accounts are not extraordinary, and do not count as evidence when it comes to the claim of an interaction with a god. The person who makes the claim that their account is adequate evidence is confusing what is sufficient for faith with what is needed to convince another person.

It seems that for an individual that holds religious belief, and claims to have had a spiritual/religious experience

Originally posted by anaconda
experience as before or after the purple pills?

There's a before the purple pills? 😕

There's a before the purple pills?

LUUUUUUUULZ

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence has to be to support the claim, and the claim of an interaction with a god is a very extraordinary claim. Ordinary evidence, like I witness accounts are not extraordinary, and do not count as evidence when it comes to the claim of an interaction with a god. The person who makes the claim that their account is adequate evidence is confusing what is sufficient for faith with what is needed to convince another person.

Excellent answer. Co-signed in full. And I like that the distinction is made between what works for the individual and what works for discussion with others.

To add just a bit: If I said that there is a complete lack of evidence for the existence of Santa, a young child's intuitive assertion that he is real doesn't hold up, however strongly they may believe it. And it's the same thing for God. There isn't proof of his nonexistence, and there may never be. But once you perceive the utter lack of evidence for a creator, believing in one based on faith becomes no less silly than the aforementioned child, who at least has youthful naivety as a legitimate excuse. Adults do not.

Both sides are wrong.

Lack of evidence for one side of an argument is not evidence for the other side.

However, if the one saying that he had a religious experience, or that God factually exists, he must give evidence/proof of his claim. Until he does, it holds no water. But that doesn't mean the other side is now correct.

Originally posted by BackFire
Both sides are wrong.

Lack of evidence for one side of an argument is not evidence for the other side.

However, if the one saying that he had a religious experience, or that God factually exists, he must give evidence/proof of his claim. Until he does, it holds no water. But that doesn't mean the other side is now correct.

The other side is only wrong if they assert their position as proof. Asserting it as a highly probable theory due to lack of evidence, they can be completely in the right. Like the theory that Santa doesn't exist, to use my earlier point. Logical, probable, but not totally proven and subject to change if further evidence presents itself. So, lacking evidence for the supernatural, the logical theory would be non-theism. It's a "provisional truth", not unwavering fact, but the best conclusion given the evidence and lack thereof.

Yes, in the original post I thought that the other side was saying that (god doesn't exist because you can't prove it), which is what makes them wrong.

Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, in the original post I thought that the other side was saying that (god doesn't exist because you can't prove it), which is what makes them wrong.

Ah, ok.

👆

(god doesn't exist because you can't prove it), which is what makes them wrong.

Originally posted by Regret
It seems that for an individual that holds religious belief, and claims to have had a spiritual/religious experience, a statement by the detractor saying God (or other belief) does not exist due to lack of evidence is an absurd argument. Given this, what is the purpose of such an argument's use when discussing the topic with such an individual?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence has to be to support the claim, and the claim of an interaction with a god is a very extraordinary claim. Ordinary evidence, like I witness accounts are not extraordinary, and do not count as evidence when it comes to the claim of an interaction with a god. The person who makes the claim that their account is adequate evidence is confusing what is sufficient for faith with what is needed to convince another person.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Excellent answer. Co-signed in full. And I like that the distinction is made between what works for the individual and what works for discussion with others.

To add just a bit: If I said that there is a complete lack of evidence for the existence of Santa, a young child's intuitive assertion that he is real doesn't hold up, however strongly they may believe it. And it's the same thing for God. There isn't proof of his nonexistence, and there may never be. But once you perceive the utter lack of evidence for a creator, believing in one based on faith becomes no less silly than the aforementioned child, who at least has youthful naivety as a legitimate excuse. Adults do not.

Interesting hmm

So you claim the belief in a God to be more akin to a child's naivety.

Originally posted by anaconda
actually a brilliant definiton of it....... spot on bullseye
It actually sums it up, does it mean that I think people who believe in a religion are fools, well yes it actually do, you are

We get it, you don't like religion. Why do you even post in the Religion Forum? You enter threads here to basically say the same thing in every one.

Originally posted by anaconda
actually no they are right until proven wrong

Not true. If they are going to claim something as fact then THEY are the ones who have to prove their claim, not up to anyone else to disprove them.

They'd be right if they just said "As there is no evidence, I don't believe God exists", though. As they aren't claiming their stance as fact. They're just basing their belief (or lack thereof, in this case) on the evidence at hand.