(April 20, 2011 at 4:10 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: So let me get this right ---- you want to be allowed to use ANY argument that you see fit to use as evidence should you deem it worthy by your standards???
I haven't a clue how you've managed to interpret me as saying this.
Quote:There's nothing subjective about the standards we use in judging "evidence" of anything that does or does not exist, whether it be your god or the sun's gravitational pull. The standards are the same and they don't change or bend just because you want one of your silly ideas to be considered "evidence".
Who is this "we" you are talking about? (Aren't you a deist anyway??) I'm afraid you'll have to enlighten me as to what these objective standards of rationality are that you want to hold my beliefs accountable to. I don't find any evidence for them... (I'm also intrigued as to how these could exist in an atheistic world.)
Quote:No matter how many times you say it - the answer is always the same ... the burden of proof lies only with you, but I can still assure you of this ... you'll get an argument in support of our views. Oh you can be damn sure of that.
"Burden of proof" is another example of something whose existence I've yet to be convinced about.
(April 20, 2011 at 4:58 pm)JohnDG Wrote: But isn't it part of your faith to believe he does provide evidence? Isn't that contradictory? I would like him to come down in the middle of washington dc infront of all the media with his great white beard, jolly red suit, and presents for all the children. Oh wait that's santaclaus (seems to me he does more for us though we know he's not real)
Well, no, it wouldn't be contradictory even if I did hold that odd view. Even if God "provides evidence"* it wouldn't be contradictory for me to believe for some other reason.
*I am now picturing God - with His big white fluffy beard of course - sitting in the dock, while Exhibit A, a photograph of an atom with the words "God exists! Now turn from your sins you wicked skeptics!" written upon it is passed to the judge.
(April 20, 2011 at 5:42 pm)Rayaan Wrote: Lack of evidence does not mean lack of presence.
Hi Rayaan, thanks for welcoming me. Absence of evidence indicates absence in plenty of cases; for example, I hear stomping noises coming from my living room and come to believe that there is an elephant in there. Well, upon entry, if there's no evidence that an elephant is in the room (or a big elephant-shaped hole in the wall) that would be a pretty good reason to doubt whether there was an elephant in there, wouldn't it? On the other hand, if I'd been told that there was a flea in my living room, but upon inspection I couldn't find a flea in there, that wouldn't be a very good reason to doubt that there was a flea. The difference between the two cases is that with the first we would
expect evidence of an elephant being there, but with the second we wouldn't expect evidence of a flea being there.
(April 20, 2011 at 7:30 pm)Minimalist Wrote: So, A) that makes you a fairly typical believer. You believe it because you want to or its convenient. That's fine...don't expect to get far with such an argument.
And B) as far as "evidence" goes, either words have meaning or they don't. I use this definition:
Quote:The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
Otherwise, feel free to enjoy yourself.
Somehow you deduce that, if I don't believe because of particular evidence, then I must believe out of desire or convenience. Are you not aware of any other forms of reasoning than "There's evidence for X, therefore X"?
Evidence has lots of different meanings (i.e. it has a semantic range, like most words). You've chosen a fairly broad definition, but problematically it involves the subjective element of "indication". What one thing indicates to one person may (often) be different to what it indicates to another. What kind of facts could/would indicate to you that God exists? (Leaving aside what counts as a "fact".)
from Oz Enjoy your stay here.
