Vauge and confusing metaphysical responses re evidence

[Pezzoni]

I recieved this from a friend, as a response to my claim that it is unreasonable to believe in a God without evidence:

Think about it... you said that there must be sufficient evidence to prove that anything exists. How come? What evidence do you have to prove that that is the only type of acceptable proof? You started out with a statement which you cant have any evidence for.

Don't want to get all meta-physical on you, but you cant even prove that the the sense experience type evidence that you want really exists. With that type of view it would be impossible to have sufficient evidence that any one else has any experiences at all and therefore all other people'e experiences and opinions are pointless.

Basically, it appears vauge, confusing and evasive, but I'm intersted on your take on stuff like this, not least because I'm not entirely sure how to respond...

[wolveraptor]

Classic solipsist bullshit. Since he clearly doesn't believe that evidence is necessary to assume something exists, ask him if he would be agreeable to a scientific community where no one was required to prove anything. Theories about the existence Invisible Dancing Unicorns and Rabid Garden Gnomes would be bandied about with the same respect that Theories of Gravity and Evolution do today.

[Azrael]

Think about it... you said that there must be sufficient evidence to prove that anything exists. How come? What evidence do you have to prove that that is the only type of acceptable proof? You started out with a statement which you cant have any evidence for.

Don't want to get all meta-physical on you, but you cant even prove that the the sense experience type evidence that you want really exists. With that type of view it would be impossible to have sufficient evidence that any one else has any experiences at all and therefore all other people'e experiences and opinions are pointless.

If evidence for the existence of anything is "pointless" then, clearly evidence for existence itself is equally pointless: Nothing exists.

Solipsim. Bullshitting you since 478 BC.

[Darth Wong]

He's rejecting the only kind of reliable data we really have, so he can basically say that "anything goes". If we adopt his logic, there is nothing that you can definitely call "true" or "untrue".

This is the last-ditch tactic of one who defends bullshit. Simply deny the concept of knowledge itself. Pretend it's impossible to know anything, even though he knows perfectly well that the ground beneath his feet is more real than the beliefs in his scriptures. It's the height of dishonesty.

[Patrick Degan]

Think about it... you said that there must be sufficient evidence to prove that anything exists. How come? What evidence do you have to prove that that is the only type of acceptable proof? You started out with a statement which you cant have any evidence for.

Don't want to get all meta-physical on you, but you cant even prove that the the sense experience type evidence that you want really exists. With that type of view it would be impossible to have sufficient evidence that any one else has any experiences at all and therefore all other people'e experiences and opinions are pointless.

Kirin'ka'tha's First Law of Metaphysics: Nothng Unreal Exists.

[mr friendly guy]

Think about it... you said that there must be sufficient evidence to prove that anything exists. How come?

Because evidence helps us draw the correct conclusions. We know they are the correct conclusion because our predictions line up with observations and experimentations.

Lack of evidence doesn't.

What evidence do you have to prove that that is the only type of acceptable proof?

Stolen concept fallacy, where evidence is the stolen concept.

He is arguing that "lack of evidence" for "evidence as a valid proof" means we can't use the latter. However for the "lack of evidence" to be telling, he is presupposing that evidence itself is useful for showing something, which runs counter to his argument.

You started out with a statement which you cant have any evidence for.

And you used a logically fallacious argument dumbass. Of course moron boy didn't realise the difference of asking for evidence about evidence as opposed to asking for evidence about something else.

Don't want to get all meta-physical on you, but you cant even prove that the the sense experience type evidence that you want really exists.

Isn't that an argument for God not existing, since we can't have have the sense experience to show he exists.

With that type of view it would be impossible to have sufficient evidence that any one else has any experiences at all and therefore all other people'e experiences and opinions are pointless.

Basically, it appears vauge, confusing and evasive, but I'm intersted on your take on stuff like this, not least because I'm not entirely sure how to respond...

Including your own dumbass. In which case I don't have to consider it since you just admitted your own argument sucks. But thats what happens when you use a stolen concept argument.

[General Zod]

This particular type of imbecile is easy to handle. Simply provide him with the following challenge. By his logic, then we cannot know that jumping off a hundred story building with no support (parachutes, bungee cords, etc) will kill you or not. Then proceed to challenge him to back up his claims and jump off a 100 story building. If he's right, then he doesn't have anything to be afraid of in doing so.

[b00tleg]

I recieved this from a friend, as a response to my claim that it is unreasonable to believe in a God without evidence:

Think about it... you said that there must be sufficient evidence to prove that anything exists. How come? What evidence do you have to prove that that is the only type of acceptable proof? You started out with a statement which you cant have any evidence for.

Don't want to get all meta-physical on you, but you cant even prove that the the sense experience type evidence that you want really exists. With that type of view it would be impossible to have sufficient evidence that any one else has any experiences at all and therefore all other people'e experiences and opinions are pointless.

Basically, it appears vauge, confusing and evasive, but I'm intersted on your take on stuff like this, not least because I'm not entirely sure how to respond...

LOL. Ask your friend this then. By which evidence does he consider sufficient to prove the existence of God. Make sure however to point out that faith, hearing voices, burning bushes, a massively inconsistent and contradictory text (the bible, pick your version) do not warrant sufficient evidence.