standard of evidence

[downbeatplumb]

I've noticed a lot on these forums there are those who claim either that there is no evidence that supports theism or not enough. this brings a couple questions to my mind. what do you consider positive evidence to support a religious proposition such as theism? is there only empirical evidence and if so why can't deductive and inductive arguments work as well?

"arguments" are not proof.
They can be skewed to presuppose the desired answer.
They are as bad as anecdotal evidence, which agian is not acceptable.

lets say there's an argument that consists of premises that are supported by empirical evidence and in and of themselves have no religious implication. the conclusions drawn from such premises would have religious implication and would logically be supported from the premises. would this count as empirical evidence?

Lets look at these on a case by case basis. This question is too general to answer here.

the next question I have is what is considered an adequate amount of evidence for theism? sometimes it seems people demand an unreasonable amount of evidence to the point where it is impossible to prove the proposition.

I don't even know what a god is supposed to be. I have seen some descriptions say stupid things like he is a "being outside of time and space" what does this even mean. And even the pathetic god is love, god is mercy and god is the foundation of morality which is just anthropomorphising abstract concepts.

I myself have a standard burden of proof for every proposition.
-if a proposition has more supporting evidence than its negating proposition, then it is most reasonable to believe that proposition (note that doesn't make the proposition itself true). if there is an equal amount or no evidence for a proposition and/or its negation, then it is most reasonable to believe in a neutral skeptical agnosticism concerning the propositions.
do you think this is fair?

Only if you want to delude yourself.

And I can see that you do.

[max-greece]

"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."

And I am telling you why that standard has to be beyond reasonable. There's nothing irrational about it.

OK - lets try it this way:

A fish and chip shop moves into the building next to mine. I have some concerns over the impact on my health - I go and ask some questions, get answers and decide its OK.

A nuclear reactor moves into the building next to mine. I have some concerns over the impact on my health - I go and ask a lot of fucking questions - way more than I would for the shop and I expect a much better quality of answer.

And this is unreasonable to you?

[Brian37]

"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."

And I am telling you why that standard has to be beyond reasonable. There's nothing irrational about it.

OK - lets try it this way:

A fish and chip shop moves into the building next to mine. I have some concerns over the impact on my health - I go and ask some questions, get answers and decide its OK.

A nuclear reactor moves into the building next to mine. I have some concerns over the impact on my health - I go and ask a lot of fucking questions - way more than I would for the shop and I expect a much better quality of answer.

And this is unreasonable to you?

Yes damn it, why should we care if those around us make naked assertions and hold the world hostage with their delusions? Asking pesky questions hurts their feelings.

Nothing good ever comes out of asking questions or challenging social norms. You act like discovering that the earth rotated around the sun was a good thing. You act like knowing the sun is not a god is a good thing.

Why cant you just leave superstitious people alone?

It is not nice to inconvenience people with pesky things like facts and reality.

[Doubting Thomas]

Seriously, anyone pretending to not know what would be a rational amount of evidence is either lying or just delusional. And then claiming that we haven't defined what rational proof would consist of... that's just being dishonest.

If you want to convince someone of anything, you need to show them evidence beyond them still having any rational skepticism. And the more fantastic the claim, the more fantastic the evidence needs to be. It's not hard to understand this, I'm sure they use this form of evidentiary belief on a daily basis.

[Rational AKD]

Yet I'm supposed to suspend logic and believe that all other gods were imaginary yet this particular one is real.

man, you really like to create straw men don't you? or here's my sarcastic response; thanks for telling me what my argument is, I wouldn't be able to figure it out myself... I never once said to believe in God yet alone believe in God because of lack of evidence. this whole time I've been asking for acceptable evidence and amount of evidence that's reasonable. now let me clarify, in order for it to be reasonable it must be fair across the board. that means the burden of proof for one proposition is equal to any other. this includes negative propositions like "God doesn't exist." but that's shifting the burd-no it's not. as I said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. you don't want to believe in God because of lack of evidence? fine. you want to say believing God doesn't exist is more rational because of lack of evidence for God? no. you can't have your cake and eat it too. you can't say evidence required for God is a lot and evidence required against God is zero. you can't have your cake and eat it too.

All this based on zero evidence. So the claims about any gods existing are highly unlikely.

lack of evidence doesn't make something improbable. you know how you calculate probability?
1. determine possibility.
2. calculate how often the occurrence is with a given amount of time, repetitions etc.
lack of evidence may make us unsure of the possibility, but that doesn't make it improbable. it makes the probability indeterminate.

You miss the entire point of me pointing out why I don't demand proof of every single tiny little detail of my life every day.

and you miss the point that i'm not talking about the amount of evidence it takes to convince you. I don't care about that. i'm talking about a standard of evidence it takes to establish a proposition as rational. that's it.

I'm pretty skeptical. It's all based on making rational judgements, and some times total evidence is not necessary.

and what rational arguments have you seen that support God's non-existence? if none, then it's not rational to believe that God doesn't exist. it also doesn't mean that it's rational to believe it does, but in that case ignorance is the rational stance. "I don't know if he exists or not."

It's all based on making rational judgements, and some times total evidence is not necessary.

what i'm trying to get to the bottom of is why that would be the case. because we find it hard to believe? because they seem extraordinary? because of our on presumptions of what is normal or possible? all these things are irrational baselines to create standards off of. give me one good reason why burden of proof is not equal across the board. again i'm not talking about believability. i'm talking about establishing propositions as rational.

But there's a massive difference in the claim "I have a baseball" and "I have a god." You know it, and to deny it is just being dishonest.

yes, there's no philosophical significance to having a basketball. but concerning burden of proof, it would take an equal amount to proof the existence of either. a basketball's existence would be rather easy to prove because it's easily accessible to show someone. God is not, so it makes it harder to prove but doesn't change the burden of proof.

No, burden of proof has to do solely with whoever's making a claim.

we're talking about 2 different things. burden of proof pertains to the person making the claim but involves establishing what is rational or possibly true.

Again, if I have a baseball and you don't believe I do, it's not up to you to disprove it.

and that's not what I ever said. I said it's up to you to establish a reasonable amount of evidence to consider it rational. to say "it takes infinite amount of proof to believe in God but zero amount of proof to believe he doesn't exist" is not rational. again, refer to Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy.

your picture is cute but irrelevant. I'm not saying lack of opposing evidence is evidence for God. i'm saying lack of evidence for God is not evidence against God, and to claim that you need more evidence to prove God's existence than to disprove it is not rational. again, the default position is ignorance, not opposition. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

Right, so why did you imply that I have a burden of proof to explain my atheism? I never claimed that there are no gods anywhere.

you claim there is more burden to show God exists than that he doesn't. that's where you need evidence to substantiate your claim.

Hardly. Not believing in a god is the logical and rational default position when there's no evidence to support this god.

that may be true, but that's not what i'm discussing. i'm saying ignorance is the default position, not opposition. someone who says "there is no evidence for God, therefore I see no reason to believe it" has no burden of proof. but someone who says "there is no evidence for God, therefore God doesn't exist" is clearly committing Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy. do you see the difference?

Do you commit a fallacy when you say "there's no evidence for Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, so therefore they don't exist?"

yes, because you are solely claiming non-existence due to lack of evidence. now, if you were to do some research and say "Santa Claus originated as a Saint in Germany who gave presents to children and there's record of his death, therefore it's not likely the modern stories are true." that's a rational inductive argument.

It's stupid to have to go through life saying, "I don't believe that X exists because there's no evidence, but some previously unknown evidence could be found in the future or they could exist in some other dimension that is unknowable by science."

I implore you to read the fallacyfiles website I provided on Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and we must be open to the possibility that evidence will change. even science applies this. there is no law, principle, or theory that is established absolutely 100% for all time no matter what. even newton's laws of motion aren't established to absolute certainty and are currently being challenged on the quantum level. but anyways, you can't establish non-existence of anything solely based on lack of evidence. lack of evidence is not proof of anything besides that there is no evidence.

[Brian37]

Seriously, anyone pretending to not know what would be a rational amount of evidence is either lying or just delusional. And then claiming that we haven't defined what rational proof would consist of... that's just being dishonest.

If you want to convince someone of anything, you need to show them evidence beyond them still having any rational skepticism. And the more fantastic the claim, the more fantastic the evidence needs to be. It's not hard to understand this, I'm sure they use this form of evidentiary belief on a daily basis.

You and your pesky "evidence". Santa is real, I know he is, I have presents under my tree.

[DeistPaladin]

...what do you consider positive evidence to support a religious proposition such as theism? is there only empirical evidence and if so why can't deductive and inductive arguments work as well?

...the next question I have is what is considered an adequate amount of evidence for theism?

The logical rules that we live by in all other areas of our lives is that the person making a claim "X" exists has the burden of proof and this burden is based on how consistent the claim is with our everyday experience of the universe.

I often like to use the three reports of my lunchtime companions to show how this process works in real life. Let's say I told you that today I had lunch with...

A. ...my wife. This is a fairly mundane claim, one consistent with everyday experience and within the bounds of normal expectation. You're likely to accept this claim as true based upon 1. the lack of contrary evidence and 2. my testimony.

B. ....the President of the United States. This is an extraordinary claim but still consistent with everyday experience. After all, the President has lunch with people all the time. What places this claim outside the bounds of your normal expectations is that I'm neither rich nor powerful nor a celebrity. You know there's little reason that the President would have lunch with someone as ordinary as myself. Therefore, you would react with skepticism. That is, you may be willing to consider it true but first would need to see hard evidence, perhaps in the form of media documentation, like the event being published about in a newspaper.

C. ...my dead father, deceased 10 years and his body cremated. Turns out, he's back from the dead with a freshly reconstituted body and feeling so much better now. This claim is quite extraordinary, to say the least. Your reaction is likely going to be beyond skepticism, into the realm of immediate ridicule. With skepticism, you consider the possibility and look for evidence to support it, inclined to disbelieve the claim if insufficient evidence is found. You are likely to not even take my claim seriously. If I present you with overwhelming evidence (video footage, newspaper articles, several eye-witnesses, etc), even then you would be well within the bounds of reason to consider the possibility that the whole thing is a hoax or a shared delusion.

Of the three scenarios, which one is most analogous to religious claims?

Here's a hint:



OK, so we've established how outlandish the claims of religion are. This sets the standard for the burden of proof.

This is why the usual "step 1 blah blah blah, step 2 blah blah blah, step 3 therefore Jesus" is not sufficient. I'm not suggesting that logical arguments and philosophy aren't useful in understanding our universe but, by themselves and without hard evidence backing them, they are weak forms of evidence at best. They might be useful in proving scenario A but would fall short of meeting the burden of proof for B, never mind C. Consequently, it fails before we even examine the flawed reasoning because the burden isn't going to be met even if no flaws are discovered.

Now what kind of evidence would be convincing?

Consider the original Star Wars movie.



Darth Vader does not offer the Ontological Argument for the Force. He doesn't mess around with the Transcendental Argument or the Teleological Argument. There is no "blah blah blah, therefore the Force". He offers an effective, if violent, demonstration that can't be confused with coincidence or natural occurrence.

If it were a real story, not a single Aforcist would have left that briefing room that day.

Hope this helps.

[Minimalist]

lack of evidence doesn't make something improbable.

There is no evidence that Martians invaded Nebraska in 1880. That does not mean that it happened.

Likewise, there is no evidence for your god or any other gods which man has invented.

Try to string the two thoughts together.

[Brian37]

...what do you consider positive evidence to support a religious proposition such as theism? is there only empirical evidence and if so why can't deductive and inductive arguments work as well?

...the next question I have is what is considered an adequate amount of evidence for theism?

The logical rules that we live by in all other areas of our lives is that the person making a claim "X" exists has the burden of proof and this burden is based on how consistent the claim is with our everyday experience of the universe.

I often like to use the three reports of my lunchtime companions to show how this process works in real life. Let's say I told you that today I had lunch with...

A. ...my wife. This is a fairly mundane claim, one consistent with everyday experience and within the bounds of normal expectation. You're likely to accept this claim as true based upon 1. the lack of contrary evidence and 2. my testimony.

B. ....the President of the United States. This is an extraordinary claim but still consistent with everyday experience. After all, the President has lunch with people all the time. What places this claim outside the bounds of your normal expectations is that I'm neither rich nor powerful nor a celebrity. You know there's little reason that the President would have lunch with someone as ordinary as myself. Therefore, you would react with skepticism. That is, you may be willing to consider it true but first would need to see hard evidence, perhaps in the form of media documentation, like the event being published about in a newspaper.

C. ...my dead father, deceased 10 years and his body cremated. Turns out, he's back from the dead with a freshly reconstituted body and feeling so much better now. This claim is quite extraordinary, to say the least. Your reaction is likely going to be beyond skepticism, into the realm of immediate ridicule. With skepticism, you consider the possibility and look for evidence to support it, inclined to disbelieve the claim if insufficient evidence is found. You are likely to not even take my claim seriously. If I present you with overwhelming evidence (video footage, newspaper articles, several eye-witnesses, etc), even then you would be well within the bounds of reason to consider the possibility that the whole thing is a hoax or a shared delusion.

Of the three scenarios, which one is most analogous to religious claims?

Here's a hint:



OK, so we've established how outlandish the claims of religion are. This sets the standard for the burden of proof.

This is why the usual "step 1 blah blah blah, step 2 blah blah blah, step 3 therefore Jesus" is not sufficient. I'm not suggesting that logical arguments and philosophy aren't useful in understanding our universe but, by themselves and without hard evidence backing them, they are weak forms of evidence at best. They might be useful in proving scenario A but would fall short of meeting the burden of proof for B, never mind C. Consequently, it fails before we even examine the flawed reasoning because the burden isn't going to be met even if no flaws are discovered.

Now what kind of evidence would be convincing?

Consider the original Star Wars movie.



Darth Vader does not offer the Ontological Argument for the Force. He doesn't mess around with the Transcendental Argument or the Teleological Argument. There is no "blah blah blah, therefore the Force". He offers an effective, if violent, demonstration that can't be confused with coincidence or natural occurrence.

If it were a real story, not a single Aforcist would have left that briefing room that day.

Hope this helps.

SHIT, really, I do get the argument. But something about this is giving me a lip twitch as far as tactic in use of metaphor.

I guess I'll have to witness the claptrap our resident believers use to wiggle out of this one.

[Doubting Thomas]

lack of evidence doesn't make something improbable.

Um, yeah it does. It doesn't prove something as impossible, but it does make it improbable. Improbable =/= impossible.

Fuck the rest of everything you typed. You just keep harping on standards of evidence which ought to be plainly obvious, and trying to shift the burden of proof on me to justify not believing in your god. I'm not playing any more.

The only other thing I'll say is that whatever standard of evidence it would take to prove that Zeus is real to you is the same standard of evidence it would take to prove that God is real to me. You figure it out.