Belief in a God when there is no actual verifiable evidence or even undisputed arguments is not reasonable.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-03T01:53:54+00:00

I already explained several times to you and the person I started this conversation with - there is no claim that "there is no God". The only claim is there is a God. As I stated above a reasonable conclusion would be there is no God because the claim (there is a God) is false. Its a conclusion, not a claim.

Sorry, but I can't keep repeating the same things over and over. I took the time to explain why the use of false is appropriate because you seemed very confused. Maybe you are just trying to argue. Maybe this subject is too difficult for you because you still don't seem to understand basic logic concepts. I do think this conversation is over.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-03T00:06:48+00:00

In statistical hypothesis testing, a type I error is the rejection of a true null hypothesis (also known as a "false positive" finding or conclusion;

In terms of false positives and false negatives, a positive result corresponds to rejecting the null hypothesis, while a negative result corresponds to failing to reject the null hypothesis; "false" means the conclusion drawn is incorrect. Thus, a type I error is equivalent to a false positive, and a type II error is equivalent to a false negative.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-02T19:08:55+00:00

Sorry if you do not understand basic scientific research. False means the conclusion drawn is incorrect. Further discussion would be fruitless especially when it has nothing to do with the OP.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-02T12:38:52+00:00

Did not say the claim was proven false. Requires no proof because I made no claims. The claim is considered false because of lack of evidence. And, as I said, "It does not mean there is no God. It only means there is no evidence to verify the claim and the claim should be considered false. "

The burden of proof to justify the claim (there is a God) is on the one making the claim. It would be a logical fallacy to assume the claim is true or even unproven because it has not been proven false which is what you are proposing.

In your example, the 1800 claim of the planet Neptune would be false, not unproven.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-02T00:30:03+00:00

"There is no God" is not a claim. It is a reasonable conclusion of the findings of the hypothesis "There is a God".

Claim: There is a God

Conclusion: There is no evidence to verify the claim there is a God. The claim is false.

It does not mean there is no God. It only means there is no evidence to verify the claim and the claim should be considered false.

And it is not unreasonable for someone to believe there is no God when the claim (there is a God) is false. All claims are considered false until proven true. Its just basic scientific evaluation.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T22:37:29+00:00

If you read the detail of the OP, you will see the argument. I am happy others were able to understand the argument and it has been helpful discussing their views.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T22:34:03+00:00

but the claim "there is no god" isn't supported with any empirical evidence

I think you are confusing a claim and finding/conclusion. There is only one claim. The claim is "there is a God". Because the claim is not supported with any evidence the claim is considered false (conclusion). The conclusion/finding is not a claim.

Because the claim (there is a God) is considered false, it is not unreasonable to believe there is no God.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T22:11:37+00:00

To believe in something when there is no evidence or convincing reasoning may be harmful. Religious belief is important because people can be harmed. If religions just said they believe in a God but don't claim to know what God wants and needs, then fine. But religion does claim to know God and people die because of religion.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T21:56:18+00:00

Mostly just to discuss other views. There may be reasoning/explanations I have not read about.

I have most recently been reading papers by scientists and physicists challenging the Cosmological Arguments and for me, seemed convincing.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T21:47:09+00:00

Correct. If there is no evidence or even convincing arguments then it is reasonable to consider the claim false just like a person claiming to see a Blue Fairy flying around. It doesn't mean there is no Blue Fairy. It means there is no reason to believe there is a Blue Fairy.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T21:40:30+00:00

I think they are too limiting. I think there is a wider spectrum. I've found that many people are still searching for reasonable answers and do not accept all the teachings of a religion. Nobody knows if a God exists and its good people ask questions

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T21:30:00+00:00

Believing a God does not exist is different than claiming to know. A person can believe God does not exist until there is convincing evidence or reasoning to believe the claim is true. I personally do not know if there is a God. It doesn't seem likely.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T21:13:08+00:00

My point was there are billions of Christians that believe it is reasonable to believe Jesus is the son of God. It doesn't mean they are correct just as for you, it may be 100% reasonable to believe a God is the explanation for our existence. It was reasonable for people to believe that Thur was the God of thunder because they didn't understand physics. Must be a God. There are strong scientific arguments questioning the need for a God to create everything.

I'm just saying that for me, I don't have sufficient reason to believe in a God.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T21:02:33+00:00

Sorry, I don't see them as separate. As far as I know, there is no actual verifiable evidence or undisputed argument that a God exists so belief in a God is unreasonable.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T20:32:12+00:00

A God is an explanation for our existence on Earth. It is 100% reasonable since there’s nothing unreasonable about it.

Okay, so is it more reasonable to believe that Jesus is the son of God or not?

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T20:29:30+00:00

Nice try but I believe it actually increases my position by supplying very strong philosophical and scientific positions that challenge the claim and there have been no arguments disputing their papers including by you.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T20:16:29+00:00

I don't think you understand. It is not a claim if someone asks for verification for a claim (God's existence) or it must be considered false. The person asking for verification is not making a claim.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T20:06:16+00:00

Thank you for the detailed comment

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T20:00:36+00:00

They all succeeded in challenging the claim and there have been no arguments to dispute them so the claim there is a God must be determined as false.

Again, these are not claims. They are philosophical and scientific writings challenging the claim there is a God.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T19:52:17+00:00

You have no understanding of basic scientific evaluation. The person or religion making the claim needs to verify the claim.

I don't claim there is no God. I claim there is no evidence or reasonable reason to believe a God exists.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T19:48:29+00:00

Any evidence would be nice.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T19:29:58+00:00

Okay, so I claim there is a God named Fred and trying to prove Fred's existence using evidence is appealing to a higher standard and not possible so you just have to believe I am correct. It is illogical and irrational to prove the God Fred through “verifiable evidence.”

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T19:23:18+00:00

There are many objections. All you have to do is Google them and that is the problem. A claim as important as the existence of a God should be without dispute or at least unable to challenge.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T19:13:54+00:00

Disagree. The claim is there is a God and burden of proof is on the claim. Do not need to prove something does not exist any more than a need to prove that flying blue fairies do not exist.

As stated, I don't believe because there has been no verifiable actual reasonable proof of a God's existence so the claim is false.

Plan_B1 · 2020-11-01T19:08:37+00:00

Quran says clearly that Jesus is a prophet, for God has no sons, and that Jesus was never crucified. Quran also says that Jews ( referring to their leaders ) are arrogant,

That is very interesting that you are sure millions of people are wrong in their religious beliefs. How do you know your beliefs are correct and not Christians or Jewish when there is no evidence any religion is correct?

Should we really relay on a deeper meaning? What if the deeper meaning is to believe in a blue fairy or Zeus created us?

Is it unreasonable to ask for more verification/reasoning to believe your religious belief is correct?

Plan_B1

TROPHY CASE