standard of evidence

[LastPoet]

So, can you do a TL;DR version of what you believe or are you going to throw us a bible?

[Rational AKD]

Rational AKD, I addressed the OP [ur=http://atheistforums.org/thread-21163-post-516135.html#pid516135]here[/url], but you didn't reply. I'm curious as to what you think, as I think this is an interesting conversation.

I apologize that I missed your comment. I've been flooded with plenty and it's hard to keep track and reply to everyone.

I agree with Kant in that our understanding and knowledge of the phenomenal world cannot be extended to that of the noumenal one. Metaphysical answers fail because we have no way of knowing if the understanding we gain through our mental faculties is applicable beyond the phenomenal world. Thus, we cannot rely on purely metaphysical reasoning.

this seems to be well thought out, but I don't intend on relying on purely metaphysical reasoning. I may use the concept of possible worlds to help with a deductive argument, but I also rely on empirical evidence supported in the premises. as for metaphysical answers, I disagree. there may be problems that demand metaphysical answers. there may be an occurrence impossible to explain using the universe alone and thus we need to postulate something metaphysical outside the universe to answer the problem. I know i'm not really being too revealing of what i'm referring to but i'm not comfortable straying off topic on a huge tangent so i'm not bringing up specific arguments.

we see that everything in the phenomenal world is preceded by a cause, but that does not allow us to make claims about cause and effect outside of spatial and temporal dimensions.

well I kind of disagree with this as well. we can certainly postulate certain conditions outside of space and time. for example, a material object could not exist outside space and time due to the fact that it requires space as a property of itself being that it's made of matter.

I'm not sure if one simple standard for all claims can be determined, for if this were possible, there wouldn't be so many different conclusions based upon the same evidence.

conclusions people draw from evidence are often based on their own biases and thus are not rational. I think giving every proposition an equal burden of proof is essential to removing biases from our conclusions. math is pretty standard. there's almost no dispute among mathematicians on how to do math. why? because no one really invests emotional attachment in that subject, so they don't have biases to throw them off. logic should be the same. putting emotion in logic only leads to fallacies, the two don't mix when making rational claims.

Firstly, there has to be the consideration of the support behind the positive argument and the support behind the negation of that argument. Then one has to take into account such things like how many assumptions must be made in order for the positive argument to be true, and does the argument appear to make intuitive sense. That latter part is tricky, as much of our knowledge must be taken a priori without actual proof.

that's an interesting process. I didn't really go into detail concerning all variables that can determine weight of a claim. I don't really have much problem with your process though.

I believe that all knowledge human beings attain must be understood in the context that it is discovered, which is that it always must understood that it has been perceived and filtered by the human brain.

true, and that's where solipsism comes from. but putting that epistemological belief aside, it is important to be aware of certain filters concerning your perception. that's why it's always good to cross examine claims with other people. other people may perceive something you didn't that can shape your conclusions.

All in all, I think it comes down to the individual and his/her viewpoints, not some objective standard that can be rigidly used for all claims.

I agree that for different individuals, the manner of interpreting evidence will vary between individuals. but I still think the standard of evidence should be solid. if there is more evidence for a proposition than its negation, it's rational to believe that proposition. you may later realize the evidence for that proposition was false, or misinterpreted. if this is the case, it would be rational to change your view to fit with the evidence. you may believe string theory is the most rational theory of quantum mechanics at one time and then change it when new evidence comes to light. being rational doesn't mean you're always right, it means you're always able to justify your position and you can always justify it by saying there's more evidence supporting the proposition than its negation or alternatives. no one can say you're irrational for believing the proposition with the most evidence.

[Chas]

there is also no way to show someone a quark, but does that mean we shouldn't believe in them?

"One of the definitive experiments which supports the quark model is the high energy annihilation of electrons and positrons. The annihilation can produce muon-antimuon pairs or quark-antiquark pairs which in turn produce hadrons. The hadron events are evidence of quark production. The ratio of the number of hadron events to the number of muon events gives a measure of the number of "colors" of the quarks, and the evidence points to five quarks with three colors. With the more recent evidence for the top quark, these experiments provide support for the standard model of six quarks with three colors. "
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hba...qevid.html

This is called evidence.

---

You can continue to play silly buggers with "standards of evidence", but that's not the way it works.

Present your evidence and it will be evaluated. That's the way it works.

[bennyboy]

true, and that's where solipsism comes from. but putting that epistemological belief aside, it is important to be aware of certain filters concerning your perception. that's why it's always good to cross examine claims with other people. other people may perceive something you didn't that can shape your conclusions.

True enough, but with a caveat: you must make an effort to determine the NATURE of those other people's perceptions, and especially how they arrive at their interpretations of them.

So you can talk to respected, clever people, and have them talk about their experiences with God. But that's an interpretation: the reality is that they have feelings. They may even see a glowing human shape, or hear a voice that seems to come from the sky. You can take their experience at face value, unless you think they're lying. But their interpretation, "I saw a glowing human, therefore angels, therefore Bible, therefore God," then there's a problem.

[Doubting Thomas]

It's not just lack of evidence, but evidence to the contrary.

alright, you'll have to explain what the "evidence to the contrary" is.

Mainly the fact that most, if not all, gods were obviously invented by man's imagination. They couldn't all co-exist, so some of them had to be imaginary. If some gods are imaginary, then how do you prove that all gods, without evidence to show they exist, are not imaginary? Even Christians will admit that all other gods except Yahweh are imaginary, so what makes their own god so special as to actually exist?

Secondly, the bible is such a flawed work with so many impossible stories which could never have happened, and in fact we have evidence that they didn't happen (6-day creation 6,000 years ago, geological evidence showing no global flood ever happened, etc.) so the source document for God's existence is flawed. When Christians rely mainly on the bible to prove their god's existence, they're already at a disadvantage. So they try to explain away all the inconsistencies or pretend they don't exist.

Lastly, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god is impossible with the existence of evil in the world. If God is all-powerful, then he is not all-loving because he allows evil to exist. If he is all-loving, then he is not all-powerful because he can't eradicate evil. If he is all-loving and all-powerful, then he must not be all-knowing because evil exists without him being aware of it. However, it's impossible for a being to be all-powerful and not all-knowing.

Granted this is not definitive and conclusive evidence that this god of yours doesn't exist, but enough to convince me that there are major flaws with the Judeo-Christian god idea. There could be some magical properties which exist which make all these fatal flaws non-fatal, but the more you have to invoke magic to prove something, the less real it becomes.

And again, why are you not committing a fallacy by not believing in Zeus?

because Christianity has much more explanatory power than Greek mythology, and accepting Christianity as a belief means I can't accept Greek mythology as well because the two are not compatible. i'm not committing the fallacy because lack of evidence isn't my reason for believing they are false.

Ah, so I see you're invoking special pleading to worm your way out of it. Forget that you believe in God for a moment. Why don't you believe that Zeus or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist? Why don't you believe in the Tooth Fairy? You know as well as I do that you don't think there's any evidence for their existence, but when we atheists believe this, you're accusing us of committing a fallacy.

[Rational AKD]

So you can talk to respected, clever people, and have them talk about their experiences with God. But that's an interpretation:

when I said cross examine, I was not referring to personal experiences with God. I was referring to logical conclusions. cross examine arguments with other people to test the validity or soundness of the argument. personal experiences don't really work in convincing others which is why I refrain from that topic when I talk to people of an opposing view.

Mainly the fact that most, if not all, gods were obviously invented by man's imagination. They couldn't all co-exist, so some of them had to be imaginary. If some gods are imaginary, then how do you prove that all gods, without evidence to show they exist, are not imaginary? Even Christians will admit that all other gods except Yahweh are imaginary, so what makes their own god so special as to actually exist?

phew. you're still committing a fallacy, but it's not nearly as bad as I thought. I thought I was gonna have to give you 10 hours of derp lol. anyways, the fallacy you're committing is the composition fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/composit.html
though it may be true that theism comprises many different beliefs that conflict with one another, thus not all types of theism can be true. and it is true that if they are not true they must have been invented by man. but the fact that most of them have to be false doesn't make any one of them less true. you can't determine theism as a whole is false, or even less likely because some types of theism must be false. this is why you commit the composition fallacy.

Secondly, the bible is such a flawed work with so many impossible stories which could never have happened

impossible in a modal sense, or impossible in a physical sense? if you think they're impossible in a modal sense, you're mistaken. if you think they're impossible in a physical sense, then you may be right. however, this is not a problem since Christians and the bible don't claim them as physical events. they claim them as miracles made possible by a God who transcends the physical because he designed it himself. it would not be impossible for a God like that to make such events possible.

and in fact we have evidence that they didn't happen (6-day creation 6,000 years ago, geological evidence showing no global flood ever happened, etc.)

a lot of modern Christians (myself included) have found that account was written in an allegorical style and thus not a literal 6 day creation. it is written in a manner similar to a poem, and thus was never meant to be taken literally.

So they try to explain away all the inconsistencies or pretend they don't exist.

many of the "inconsistencies" in the bible can easily be explained away by looking either at the context, the original words used in the original language, the event context (who was talking, who were they talking to, what was going on...), historical context, or cultural context. people like to trust evilbible as a reliable source, but I myself look at more scholarly sources concerning apparent biblical inconsistencies.

Lastly, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god is impossible with the existence of evil in the world. If God is all-powerful, then he is not all-loving because he allows evil to exist. If he is all-loving, then he is not all-powerful because he can't eradicate evil. If he is all-loving and all-powerful, then he must not be all-knowing because evil exists without him being aware of it. However, it's impossible for a being to be all-powerful and not all-knowing.

oh, here we go with the problem of evil argument. I'm not going to say much on this because I will probably take on a thread specifically targeting this issue. but just as a short answer, Alvin Plantinga takes down this argument with his free will defense. he establishes that it may be possible for God to create a perfect world, but only if they are not free. God simply chose to create a world where we are free and accepted the necessary consequence of evil. i'll go into more detail in a later thread.

Granted this is not definitive and conclusive evidence that this god of yours doesn't exist

correct. the first one is a logical fallacy coupled with misunderstanding, the second one is a misunderstanding, and the third one has been defended with the free will defense. this doesn't make atheism any more plausible.

Ah, so I see you're invoking special pleading to worm your way out of it.

I don't even see how you can say i'm committing special pleading. the proposition with more explanatory power is more likely to be true. that's not special pleading, it's just fact.

Why don't you believe that Zeus or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist?

as I said, Zeus has zero evidence and zero explanatory power. the FSM is an intentional parody and not a serious belief, so why should I even consider it as a serious belief?

Why don't you believe in the Tooth Fairy?

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

You know as well as I do that you don't think there's any evidence for their existence, but when we atheists believe this, you're accusing us of committing a fallacy.

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? in fact, it's also committing the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy to say lack of evidence against God is evidence for God. bottom line is, you can't rationally believe any proposition making a claim to knowledge without evidence. this includes negative propositions such as "God doesn't exist." and more importantly, if there is no evidence for God and no evidence against God, then those two possibilities are equally plausible and equally rational. you must have evidence for one of the propositions in order to consider it rational.

[Minimalist]

Even Christians will admit that all other gods except Yahweh are imaginary, so what makes their own god so special as to actually exist?

Ooh, ooh, I know. They read it in their fucking bible!

They believe in one more god than we do.

[Airyaman]

Standard of evidence that something exists: actually show it exists. Its really that simple. All theists have are words to show their god exists and words can be used for reality or fiction so not good enough.

[Rational AKD]

Standard of evidence that something exists: actually show it exists. Its really that simple. All theists have are words to show their god exists and words can be used for reality or fiction so not good enough.

I think Christians have a little more than 'just words' to substantiate their beliefs. they have valid arguments backed up by empirical evidence. if I were to say "my car stopped running and the fuel gauge says empty, therefore I must be out of gas" I just used logic to determine why the car wasn't running. the empirical evidence being the car isn't working and the gauge is at empty, and the rational conclusion being it's out of gas. now, this may not be necessarily true. there may be another problem coupled with the fuel gauge breaking. but to say "it's possible therefore your belief isn't rational" isn't an argument against it. we may not be able to 100% say there is a God. as I said before, even if God were physically present in everyone's lives they could simply revert to solipsism. but you can certainly find out what is most rational to believe. in the case of the car for example, even though it is possible that some random problem coupled with the fuel gauge breaking, you couldn't say it's rational to believe that's the case on the evidence you have initially. only when you rule out the most likely conclusions do you consider the less likely.

[Simon Moon]

what I was speaking of was the proposition "God exists" and "God doesn't exist." just about all atheists here would agree that the negating proposition here is more rational, yet I haven't seen a single reason why that is so.

You don't think the lack of demonstrable evidence is a rational reason?

Maybe you put a lot confidence in the various philosophical arguments for the existence of god? They are demonstrably fallacious, and therefore unreasonable by definition.

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

Is it more or less rational to base your beliefs on ancient texts written by unknown authors, decades or more after the alleged events, than to think they are most likely unreliable?

Especially considering that eyewitness accounts (even if the Gospels were eyewitness accounts, which they're not) are not reliable evidence for supernatural events. If you question this, think about all the 1000's of people that claim they've been abducted by UFO's. Do you give their accounts any credibility?

all they've been doing is saying the first is an "extraordinary claim" and requires extraordinary evidence. but as I've stated, this is purely subjective. it may seem to some that a God existing is an extraordinary claim, but to others the proposition that God doesn't exist is even more extraordinary as a claim.

It is an extraordinary claim for several reasons.

1. It explains a mystery with a bigger mystery.
2. Explaining something by saying that "god did it" does not really explain a thing. You might as well be saying "magic did it",
3. There are natural explanations for almost everything attributed to gods. Where there isn't, the intellectually honest answer is "we don't know yet".
4. There is insufficient supporting evidence for the claim.

A supernatural explanation is by default the more extraordinary claim, because it is adding a layer mystery that is not required to explain anything. Saying "god did it" creates more questions than it answers.

there is no way you can objectively determine how extraordinary a claim is. the closest they've come to answering this is saying it's all about believability, but the problem is this is also subjective. the claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" just doesn't work and i'm not bringing up radical or even controversial stuff. most philosophers recognize the fallacy of this statement. David Hume may have been a great advocate of this statement, but to be honest he wasn't a good philosopher at all. an almost complete refutation of all his works exists in a book by John Earman titled 'Hume's Abject Failure.'

"I have a pet dog". Extraordinary or ordinary claim?

"I have a pet invisible dragon". Extraordinary or ordinary claim?

See, it is not too hard to tell the difference.