standard of evidence

[Brian37]

That's not what you said in post #103. Make up your mind.

I said:

as I've said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. if theism lacks substantiating evidence, all that shows is that the proposition hasn't been established to be true.

how is that inconsistent with what I just said?

I've said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Then by that absurd logic, you are mandated by consistency purposes to accept any utterance a human may make on any subject.

Me, "How do you know I am not a billionaire"

You, "Can I see your bank statement"

Me, "No, it is invisible. But banks exist and billionaires exist, so just trust me"

Or,

Me, "I am fucking Angelina Jolie right now as I type this"

You, "Prove it, let me watch you both fuck on Skype"

Me, "Perv! She exists and I exist, so therefore by proxy of utterance it is true"

There are lots of claims you rightfully reject and don't assume are true because the other person making the claim doesn't have evidence.

You have as much evidence for your pet god claim as the Egyptians had for their sun god, the irony is that they had more to physically point at than you do.

[Rational AKD]

Then by that absurd logic, you are mandated by consistency purposes to accept any utterance a human may make on any subject.

what you are taking out of context is the statement I bolded for the second time here

all that shows is that the proposition hasn't been established to be true.

this doesn't at all say anything about accepting things without evidence. it's quite the contrary actually.

[bennyboy]

That's not what you said in post #103. Make up your mind.

I said:

as I've said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. if theism lacks substantiating evidence, all that shows is that the proposition hasn't been established to be true.

how is that inconsistent with what I just said?

I think an absence of evidence IS absence of evidence, depending on context. For example, if it is decided that certain experiments should show the existence of the Higgs Boson, then running the experiment and finding no Higgs Boson would be evidence that it doesn't exist. If you state that God is an old man watching from the clouds, then many years of people flying through clouds and finding a conspicuous lack of old men there is in fact great evidence.

The reason that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence of God is that the God idea is so poorly defined that one cannot produce evidence, or even know what would constitute it. But I don't think this is a particularly good argument in favor of God, either.

[Chas]

you seem to have a lot of confidence. i'll have to put your claims to the test when I demonstrate the arguments I have.

Is more or less rational to believe in miracle claims? I'll bet you reject them for every other religion, but not your own.

I don't think other religions have met the burden of proof, but I think Christianity has.

OK, it is past time for you to present your evidence.

Quit fucking around and present it.

[bennyboy]

Yep. Philosophy just ended, and proselytizing has just begun. RAKD, if you have evidence, present it, and explain why it isn't BS.

[Brian37]

Yep. Philosophy just ended, and proselytizing has just begun. RAKD, if you have evidence, present it, and explain why it isn't BS.

Even if we agreed, they are still stuck with "which g/God/s. They are still stuck with infinite regress. And they still sound stupid claiming an invisible brain with no brain, no neurons, no location, with magical super powers.

They cant grasp the simple logic that all god/s are human concocted.

[Rational AKD]

OK, it is past time for you to present your evidence.

Quit fucking around and present it.

as I said before, I don't like straying off topic. i'll present my evidence on different threads. if you want to see it, just look out for it.

Yep. Philosophy just ended, and proselytizing has just begun. RAKD, if you have evidence, present it, and explain why it isn't BS.

how does philosophy end in the philosophy section? lol

[Doubting Thomas]

Why don't you believe in the Tooth Fairy?

again, no evidence or explanatory power and it's not a serious belief.

OK so you're committing the same fallacy you accuse others of making, namely not believing something based on lack of evidence. It's not a fallacy to do this, it's rational and logical. It only becomes a fallacy if you say that there's absolutely no way it could exist because no evidence has been shown for it. And it is a serious belief to children, but that part doesn't matter anyway.

But the very same reasons you don't believe in the Tooth Fairy are the same reasons I don't believe in your god. No evidence and it is just a fairy tale invented by humans.

you can even do a simple test to show he doesn't exist. put a tooth under your pillow and don't tell anyone. WOW, THAT WAS HARD!!

And we have a similar test to show that God doesn't exist. Get an amputee and have God regrow his missing limb. WOW, THAT WAS HARD!!

how many times have you done this now. this will be the last time I correct you on this. I don't think it's irrational to disbelieve a proposition due to lack of evidence, only that it doesn't make the contrary claim(s) any more true or rational. Get it?

And do you get that atheism doesn't say that no gods exist anywhere? We just don't believe in any gods based on the lack of evidence.

---

I think Christians have a little more than 'just words' to substantiate their beliefs. they have valid arguments backed up by empirical evidence.

OK, please show this empirical evidence which so many Christians have failed to show throughout history. If you show actual evidence for God's existence which can be verified by science you're sure to win a Nobel Prize, go down in the history books, and be a hero to billions of Christians throughout the world.

[Rational AKD]

And we have a similar test to show that God doesn't exist. Get an amputee and have God regrow his missing limb. WOW, THAT WAS HARD!!

that's a false association. it is not necessary for God to heal anyone who prays. in contrast, the tooth fairy is supposed to take all teeth as long as you put them under your pillow. one has a necessary obligation and the other doesn't.

And do you get that atheism doesn't say that no gods exist anywhere? We just don't believe in any gods based on the lack of evidence.

this is going around in a never ending circle... I realize you don't have a claim that God doesn't exist, but you've still claimed that such a proposition is more rational than saying "God exists." so nice try, you still can't avoid burden of proof.

[Doubting Thomas]

so what? this could just mean God created nature in a self functioning way.

For all the calls of "fallacy!" you do, you seem to not realize when you make an ad hoc hypothesis.

---

The reason that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence of God is that the God idea is so poorly defined that one cannot produce evidence, or even know what would constitute it.

That, and Christians keep moving the goalposts. When it was believed that God was an old man who lived in the clouds, then man took to the air and found no god up there, they determined that God must exist in some other dimension that we can't detect or go to until after we die.