Tooth Fairy Bullshit

[Neo-Scholastic]

It is humorous to watch some try to make arguments against reason. Trying to use evidentialism to deny that which based on logic, and in the end, denying their own conclusion. Nevermind the purposeful ignorance of the evidence, in order to make this arguemnet (which is without evidence itself) just the principles being put forth are quite funny.

The skeptics are misusing the word evidence. That misuse becomes immediately clear when you look at how the word is used in contexts outside of theology.

EXAMPLE 1:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: They just did.

In this example, Harry isn’t presenting any facts at all. He merely restates the original claim in a different form. This would be a case of a claim being made without evidence.

EXAMPLE 2:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: I heard people celebrating the night of the game.

Here, Harry is presenting evidence from which he inferred the Cub’s win. Since Harry lives next to Wrigley Field, he considers the party in the street sufficient justification for his claim. Yogi could object by saying that the hoopla on the street might have been from Cleveland fans or some random drunks or that people party in that neighborhood all the time. What Yogi cannot say is that Harry gave no evidence.

EXAMPLE 3:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: I was at the game and here’s the sport’s section of the Chicago Tribune from the day after the game.

Yogi really cannot say that Harry’s claim is unjustified although he could still make some weak objections. Yogi might say that Harry’s experience is just personal testimony. Yogi might also call the Tribune article is an Argument from Authority. “Why should I believe that rag?” he asks.

The tooth fairy comparison is saying that all claims about the existence of god are like Example 1. That’s simply not true. Cosmological arguments and design arguments are like Example 2. The evidences presented are general observations based on common everyday experience, such as the orderly and incredibly precise nature of the physical universe. From what is evident, theists apply reason and infer the existence of God. Historical arguments are like Example 3. The evidence presented is documentation from the past in which theists have confidence. Skeptics may think that age and apparent inconsistencies make that evidence unreliable, but it’s still evidence. It’s dishonest for the skeptics to say we are making bald assertions like in Example 1. We have presented evidence. They just don’t believe it justifies our belief that God exists. And it’s okay if they think that. We should have those debates. But the “no evidence” slogan is an attempt to hand-wave away the evidence and the tooth fairy comparison is just a dick move.

[Cyberman]

I see hoofprints in the ground. What quality of evidence do I need to support each of these proposed causes:

1 a horse
2 a zebra
3 a unicorn

[RoadRunner79]

I see hoofprints in the ground. What quality of evidence do I need to support each of these proposed causes:

1 a horse
2 a zebra
3 a unicorn

I would ask, what in the evidence leads you to one conclusion over the other.  But even without that, you have pretty sufficient evidence for a hooved animal of some kind having made those prints. I think it would be silly for someone to deny the evidence of the prints because they don't particularly like zebra's.

With only the information you have given, I don't think you are talking about evidence however, but rather of assumptions.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I see hoofprints in the ground. What quality of evidence do I need to support each of these proposed causes:

1 a horse
2 a zebra
3 a unicorn

In Wyoming the hoof print is most likely a horse and in Africa a zebra. One could suppose it to be a unicorn, but either of the first two would be more likely. I don't see the relevance. The question is how do we explain what is clearly evident. The hoof print is evidence, plain and simple. Whether or not the evidence justifies a specific claim is another issue entirely. Even if you say, this hoof print is from a unicorn, you are still presenting me with evidence, i.e. a hoof print. The evidence just might not mean what you think it does.

[Edwardo Piet]

I see hoofprints in the ground. What quality of evidence do I need to support each of these proposed causes:

1 a horse
2 a zebra
3 a unicorn

What size footprint?

If it's a big footprint then just measure the penis because I've heard Unicorn penises are massive and detached from their bodies. So find that detached penis, measure it, and lo and behold you got yourself evidence of a unicorn.

^^^^ This logic is superior to theist logic.

[Cyberman]

I see hoofprints in the ground. What quality of evidence do I need to support each of these proposed causes:

1 a horse
2 a zebra
3 a unicorn

I would ask, what in the evidence leads you to one conclusion over the other.  But even without that, you have pretty sufficient evidence for a hooved animal of some kind having made those prints. I think it would be silly for someone to deny the evidence of the prints because they don't particularly like zebra's.

With only the information you have given, I don't think you are talking about evidence however, but rather of assumptions.

In Wyoming the hoof print is most likely a horse and in Africa a zebra. One could suppose it to be a unicorn, but either of the first two would be more likely. I don't see the relevance. The question is how do we explain what is clearly evident. The hoof print is evidence, plain and simple. Whether or not the evidence justifies a specific claim is another issue entirely. Even if you say, this hoof print is from a unicorn, you are still presenting me with evidence, i.e. a hoof print. The evidence just might not mean what you think it does.

Now you're both starting to get it.

[RoadRunner79]

It is humorous to watch some try to make arguments against reason. Trying to use evidentialism to deny that which based on logic, and in the end, denying their own conclusion. Nevermind the purposeful ignorance of the evidence, in order to make this arguemnet (which is without evidence itself) just the principles being put forth are quite funny.

The skeptics are misusing the word evidence. That misuse becomes immediately clear when you look at how the word is used in contexts outside of theology.

EXAMPLE 1:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: They just did.

In this example, Harry isn’t presenting any facts at all. He merely restates the original claim in a different form. This would be a case of a claim being made without evidence.

EXAMPLE 2:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: I heard people celebrating the night of the game.

Here, Harry is presenting evidence from which he inferred the Cub’s win. Since Harry lives next to Wrigley Field, he considers the party in the street sufficient justification for his claim. Yogi could object by saying that the hoopla on the street might have been from Cleveland fans or some random drunks or that people party in that neighborhood all the time. What Yogi cannot say is that Harry gave no evidence.

EXAMPLE 3:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: I was at the game and here’s the sport’s section of the Chicago Tribune from the day after the game.

Yogi really cannot say that Harry’s claim is unjustified although he could still make some weak objections. Yogi might say that Harry’s experience is just personal testimony. Yogi might also call the Tribune article is an Argument from Authority. “Why should I believe that rag?” he asks.

The tooth fairy comparison is saying that all claims about the existence of god are like Example 1. That’s simply not true. Cosmological arguments and design arguments are like Example 2. The evidences presented are general observations based on common everyday experience, such as the orderly and incredibly precise nature of the physical universe. From what is evident, theists apply reason and infer the existence of God. Historical arguments are like Example 3. The evidence presented is documentation from the past in which theists have confidence. Skeptics may think that age and apparent inconsistencies make that evidence unreliable, but it’s still evidence. It’s dishonest for the skeptics to say we are making bald assertions like in Example 1. We have presented evidence. They just don’t believe it justifies our belief that God exists. And it’s okay if they think that. We should have those debates. But the “no evidence” slogan is an attempt to hand-wave away the evidence and the tooth fairy comparison is just a dick move.

I'm still waiting on scientific peer review, until then I lack belief that the Cubs won anything!

---

I would ask, what in the evidence leads you to one conclusion over the other.  But even without that, you have pretty sufficient evidence for a hooved animal of some kind having made those prints. I think it would be silly for someone to deny the evidence of the prints because they don't particularly like zebra's.

With only the information you have given, I don't think you are talking about evidence however, but rather of assumptions.

In Wyoming the hoof print is most likely a horse and in Africa a zebra. One could suppose it to be a unicorn, but either of the first two would be more likely. I don't see the relevance. The question is how do we explain what is clearly evident. The hoof print is evidence, plain and simple. Whether or not the evidence justifies a specific claim is another issue entirely. Even if you say, this hoof print is from a unicorn, you are still presenting me with evidence, i.e. a hoof print. The evidence just might not mean what you think it does.

Now you're both starting to get it.

Haven't changed a thing, but ok.

[Cyberman]

I know. Such is the nature of doublethink.

[Edwardo Piet]

Theists have silly beliefs.