Atheists claim to support science, yet they are unable to provide evidence that God doesn't exist

Atheists claim to support science, yet they are unable to provide evidence that God doesn't exist.

Other urls found in this thread:

nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

sage goes in all fields

thats the whole point idiot

>null hypothesis
otherwise know as burden of proof and is science. Believers claim god made the world, but they cant cast spells

Atheists claim to believe in science, yet science has failed to provide the epistemological foundation necessary for taking empirical evidence as substantial [evidence] (which, need I point it out, is necessary for scientific evidence to be taken seriously).

bump

Hey look, it's the never ending shitposter.

Any atheists care to take up this issue?

you guys think a brain transplant is possible?
in theory lets say every connection needed was doable. what would you guys do with that technology?

Umm yes?

epistemological foundation?

Dont you have something better to do than make these shity "what now athiest?" threads?

I hope hackers block your ip from getting into Sup Forums. Kys. Your point could be made the same about fucking Jesus freaks and churchgoers. God damn this op is a faggot.

We also can't prove that stupidity is infinite.

Only you can do that

this thread again

Meaning: can you provide an rationale for why empiricism is a valid epistemological position to take while ruling out all of the other possibilities?

Religion-A being outside space and time created everything
Atheism-Life just happened

Both are completely implausible, yet something happened.

ignotum per ignotum - whats epistemological foundation? the epistemological position.

there is no burden of proof for scientists to disprove gods existence. Think of the following scenario: A cult emerges that claims a giant invisible spider is the all knowing, loving, empowered being, therefore a god. Obviously no one would believe them and call them idiots. No one would thiink that it was up to scientists to disprove the existence of such a giant god spider.
The same goes for the chtistian god and any other gods. Any unfalsifiable hypothesis (a hypothesis which cant be disproved by experiments) is null and void. It makes no sense arguing about something like that or trying to disprove it.

cuz assuming before having a proof requires holding many contradictory positions at once as equally real. That in turn requires u to act based on the assumption that the chair will and will not hold your mass

Is that some new Cover Girl makeup?

Religion vs Atheism what a joke.
Ill tell you what happened, ALIENS!
aliens made themselves, after they made the entire universe they came to earth and then they made us.

Here we go again. Thank you

Sorry, epistemology is the theory or study of knowledge. To rely so heavily on empirical evidence one should have a solid justification - an epistemological foundation - for why empirical evidence is the correct or true, approach to knowledge, or whether empirical evidence can provide us with any truth at all (there are a number of arguments for why a posteri knowledge could not be the route to truth).

GUYS GUYS GUYS.
Do you ever just think to answer that question we should exclude religion as a whole and just have the question "Does god exist" In which case both sides would have a hard time proving and disproving if they do or not. Im a strong believer in god myself, but some storys in the bible are some of the dumbest shit ive ever read.

cuz they r real - they r based in reality, come from reality, r not influenced by beliefs and opinions and have no agenda, cuz they have no mind

In the US justice system, one is "innocent until proven guilty". Another way to put this is: a person is not considered until they are proven to be that. This system is reflected in science.

Atheist would need to provide refutational evidence that God doesn't exist, if there was evidence that they existed. Since there is no reliable evidence (said evidence is unreliable due to it's third person status, having been recorded millennia before present day, and having not been controlled scientific studies) that God exists or has existed, then they do not to be proven nonexistent, but rather that they need to be proven to exist.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Burden of proof lies with the claim.
Can you prove a magical being exists?

keep at it. they are beginning to break.

Thats a circular argument.
>We should believe empirical evidence is reliable because it is reliable to believe in it

Can you prove you exist faggot?

its not. u asked why its reliable, i answer, cuz its real

Can you prove "they" are real and not a deception, with a clear, definite and undoubtable epistemological rationale for it? Saying the thing is real because it is real is lazy arguing tbqhwy family

i think you meant to say, where are our alien overlords?

Can you imagine if people demanding we PROVE hobgoblins don't exist? Imagine being a scientist dedicated to the disproving of hobgoblins...that's a job I wanna have

>cracks knuckles
>tips back fedora
>"let's show everyone on Sup Forums how smart I am"
>"what am i doing with my life"

u can ask others for confirmation. U can act according to the evidence and analyse the outcome.
If u r trying to undermine reality, good luck. Reality we experience is the only 1 weve got, and so far, all weve learned about it helped create inventions and schemes of behaviours that lead to prosperity.

How do you figure its real? Or perhaps more importantly, how do you figure you can rely on your perception and representation faculties to give you an accurate understanding of how things are

>posting in said thread
Kek bless you, user.

cuz Cuz it brings results.
So if reality isnt real how can u prove god? U gonna just imagine it in your head and call it existing outside of your mind? Based on what?

Wanna feel good about your face? Join this thread

A distinct lack of evidence is 'evidence'.

Same

all ideologies are idiotic. Even rationalist.

The burden of proof is on the person asserting god does exist. Without PROOF, there is no ground for theistic belief.

Prove your Sky Fairie exists or fuck off. Teencunts who use "prove me wrong" in an argument are using a fallacious troll.

Onus Probandi, bitches.

nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

>it brings results
fam, when i drop a ball, I expect it to come back up. Perhaps it is something about my expectations that achieves this result, almost as though Im the architect of a world I dont know that I have complete control over. Perhaps these results come out of coincidence and shit happens. Its not even entirely clear why everything has to deterministic if we can even speculate the possibility of quantum mechanics behaving probabilistically

u dont know what "ideology" is

get on top of a high building, jump off and expect to fly. Surely, if your expectation create reality, ull fly.
Coincidence is ruled out with repetition.

That's not the point - if atheists are going to argue on the basis that empirical evidence (or a posteriori knowledge) is the only reliable source of knowledge, then the onus is on the atheist to provide the reasoning that states that all other epistemological possibilities are impossible.

or by* repetition

it has been answered. Go ahead and be the other fuck who wants to disprove reality with "what ifs"

It hasn't been proven - you've simply stated that it is because it is. That doesn't constitute an argument mate

I wont expect to fly however by conditioning. More importantly I cant expect to fly because I subscribe to the worldview you do, in which I expect that if I jump I will fall and die.

u have no argument to begin with. Why is it good? cuz its reliable.
why do u subscribe to my point of view? If u think u make reality by expectations, do as i said. Just believe u can fly

Thats not possible. What if I told you, if you believe I will give you 2 million dollars, then I will give you 2 million dollars, or perhaps if you believe you can jump over the grand canyon on motorcycle, then you can do it.
You see the problem with what youve asked me to do is that it gets at the matter of the issue in determining how psychological states can determine events. Truthfully, when I do jump over the canyon or jump off a ledge, I wont have any choice in what I expect or believe will happen.

I have an argument which, still, after a number of posts, you've failed to address, here: . Remember, reliability does not equal truthfulness. Nor are we discussing this on a useful / not useful basis (which you've substituted for actual sound epistemology throughout the whole argument), usefulness does not entail truthfulness. I'm concerned in my question with an epistemological foundation for empirical evidence as truthful.

Je pence donc que je suis

this nigga knows

Well to be fair, I was shitposting. I think the more appropriate question would be
Can you prove you exist as the fag you are typing on a keyboard and arguing on a mongolian claymation forum

@OP

416 here

I was not the person you asked to prove themselves... I was also just shit posting.

I can tell by your use of faggot french as opposed to alphatier latin
>cogito ergo sum

Descartes originally published in faggot French. Also I don't speak or write latin because I'm a fucking Gaulish pleb.

arent u the 1 who argues, that "when i drop a ball, I expect it to come back up. Perhaps it is something about my expectations that achieves this result"?
u r trying to undermine reality, so that your ramblings have any validity. Whats the problem again? Why is empirical evidence good? Why is it not? U have a point, or r u trolling for mental gymnastic. Uve failed to show its not a good solution. Why change?

Hey, remember that time I was your stepdad for like two weeks?

its either rationale or else we wouldnt be talking about this?

We're working on it.

whats "truth"? A sentence correlating with reality. Its u who said anything about usefulness, i said whats built on truth behaves as expected, according to theories built on facts. And when we use inventions based on the theories to better our lives and we dont die as a result, its good. Whats better to be as a human: alive or dead?

there's plenty of evidence that God doesn't exist. Each time a phenomenon is explained by something not magic, that is technically evidence against the existance of God. What it can't do is PROVE that there is no God. Also sage.

If observations and experiences cannot lead to truth then there is no way for a human to know truth.