RE: standard of evidence
October 2, 2013 at 12:22 pm
(This post was last modified: October 2, 2013 at 12:41 pm by Rational AKD.)
(October 2, 2013 at 11:51 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Because claims about gods existing are highly unlikelyreally? how did you calculate those odds? i'll give you a hint... you can't.
Quote:and chances are high that someone wants me to believe in it for some ulterior reason. Usually to surround themselves with like-minded believers so they'll be comfortable in their beliefs and to increase their political power.intentions of believers have no baring on the proposition's truth value.
Quote:It's the extraordinary claims thing which you seem to have a hard time understanding. If I claim I have a baseball, chances are you'll take me at my word since I really have little to gain by convincing you that I actually do have one. However, if I tell you that the invisible pink unicorn which lives in my back yard wants you to believe in her and give me money, you're going to demand some actual evidence before you believe me, especially since I have a motive for getting you to believe me (the money).and what you aren't understanding is you're equivocating on the potential for someone to believe and burden of proof in a logical argument. there are some people who wouldn't believe you have a baseball because they are a solipsist. believability has no baring on the truth value of a proposition. burden of proof has to do with establishing what is rational, and deducing by eliminating the impossible. there is no way to objectively establish believability, but there is a way to establish burden of proof. though you seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between subjective and objective.
Quote:There you go with shifting the burden of proof.there you go showing false understanding of logical fallacies. let me share a bit on burden of proof. the burden of proof is on someone who makes a claim to knowledge. if someone makes a claim that God exists, they have burden of proof to show that proposition is true. but if someone claims God does not exist, they likewise have burden of proof. furthermore, shifting the burden of proof is an extension of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance fallacy. you commit this fallacy when you claim "there is no evidence against God, therefore God exists" but also when you claim "there is no evidence for God, therefore God doesn't exist."
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
Quote:I'm not cherry picking anything, I just want to see some evidence.you are cherry picking in the sense you claim the proposition of theism is extraordinary but the negating proposition is not. also, you are not justified to say the proposition is false due to lack of evidence because that would again be Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. and no, you can't claim it more irrational than it's negation either without establishing more evidence against his existence than for. the default position is not claiming it's false, it's claiming ignorance.
Quote:Scientists don't just make up theories and then expect everyone to believe it. There is actual scientific discovery, peer review, and repeatable experiments which must be undergone to prove the validity of any theory. So if someone proposes the existence of a quark, it is going to have to be measured or tested in some manner before that particle is determined to exist.of course, which is why i'm trying to establish what kind of evidence is acceptable. you really don't like answering questions do you?
Quote:The same can't be shown of any gods.that's exactly what I would like to show, but i'm first asking about the acceptable evidence. I suspect that no amount of evidence is acceptable. even if God came up to them in person, took his arm off and made it come back I suspect they would prefer hallucination to the God explanation. I suspect atheism is an un-falsifiable claim that would prefer solipsism to theism.
(October 2, 2013 at 12:10 pm)max-greece Wrote: Don't be a twat. Whether or not quarks exist has little or no bearing on my life. If you want me to accept a God however you are going to need to prove it to me if he is expecting worship.
That isn't a fallacy - I have every right to demand more proof.
In other words I am telling you the standard of proof I require and why. Whether you regard it as a philosophical fallacy makes no difference. That is what I require as I live in the real world.
I really don't care if you accept it or not. what i'm asking for is a reasonable standard to consider a belief rational. you can be irrational in your belief and I could care less.
(October 2, 2013 at 12:02 pm)Brian37 Wrote: YOU don't get to pick the standards for the world. You are entitled to claim until your blue in the face your pet god claim. But you are not entitled to your own facts.that's not at all what i'm doing. i'm asking for a reasonable standard and determining whether your answers are reasonable or not using logic.
Quote:Do you seriously believe that there is an invisible magical super brain with no material, no location, that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time, that actually gives one rats ass about us being stuck on this blue rock out in the middle of nowhere?no, that's a parody of my belief that you've created.
Quote:You'd have us believe, although we know it takes one ray of light 100,000 years to travel across our galaxy, that a magic man had a hand in it? You'd have us believe humans pop out of dirt knowing what a black hole is? You'd have us believe in "poof" babies knowing it takes two sets of DNA?apparently you didn't know i'm not a young earth creationist...
Quote:You can call your magical sky daddy "Frank" for all we care, and claim it can shit ice cream, it would still be as absurd as every other naked assertion we've heard from people with other pet god claims.apparently you don't know how to use logic. come back when you learn more, maybe from this source.
Sorry, your pet god claim is as silly as claiming Thor makes lightening. It is not our fault someone sold you that bullshit.
http://people.hofstra.edu/stefan_waner/r...intro.html
(October 2, 2013 at 11:56 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: What part of "convince me beyond any doubt I have" is not a reasonable standard?
because it's a double standard as you don't demand proof beyond a doubt for everything and you can't honestly tell me you do.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
-Galileo