standard of evidence

[Simon Moon]

no, I don't. 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.

You are correct. A god or gods may exist, despite the lack if evidence.

What the lack of demonstrable evidence leads to is no justification to BELIEVE that gods exist. Atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

but that doesn't automatically mean it's false or unlikely. if it did, you would have a conundrum when people say "theism is more rational because there's no evidence against it." you can't play this one sided street game. if some logical entailment applies to one side, it must apply to the other as well.

Yes, a god may exist. As soon as the claim is supported by demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument, I'll believe it. Not a second before.

You're shifting the burden of proof. Theists are the one claiming the existence of an entity. They're the ones that have to meet the burden of proof.

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

Special pleading much?

so because it's old it's less useful? do you think that about Aristotle's three laws of logic: identity, non-contradiction, and exclusive middle? I think those are the most useful concepts we could think of and without them we can't establish any truths. I don't discredit them because they're old, or possibly poorly transmitted.

Aristotle's 3 laws stand or fall on their own merit. They are not dependent on who said them, when they recorded, or any supernatural claims.

The Gospels are drastically different in that they make supernatural claims, and much of what they say depends entirely on those claims.

irrelevant and non sequitur. quantum mechanics was a field that explained quite a bit but had way more questions than answers. just because the answer provokes a "bigger mystery" doesn't make it any less right.

But with QM, it's constantly is being explained with greater accuracy. It also makes predictions and there is beautiful and coherent math that supports it.

I understand the God of the gaps fallacy. but i'm not saying "I can't find evidence for X therefore God." my arguments would look like this: "we have evidence x and y which logically and inescapably leads us to proposition Z, which entails the existence of God."

There is nothing in the observable universe or the origin of the universe that 'logically and inescapably' leads to a proposition that entails the existence of a god.

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

Sure it could. Now, just provide demonstrable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence and reasoned argument to support this claim and I'll be compelled to accept it.

it doesn't show the proposition of God to be any less likely.

When there is no necessity to evoke a god to explain the natural universe, it sure does.

the funny thing is all of those even if they are true (which some of them are) they don't at all substantiate the proposition of God being extraordinary, or even less likely for that manner.

When natural explanations are available, any supernatural explanation is extraordinary by definition.

"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.

so you're saying an extraordinary claim is determined consistency with preconceived knowledge. the problem is all that knowledge has a potential of being wrong. you could think for the longest time "maggots spontaneously generate from raw meat" but that doesn't make the person who says "no they don't" subject to any more extraordinary evidence than any other claim. every claim is subject to a standard amount of evidence, regardless of how extraordinary they may seem.
secondly, if the proposition "God exists" is infinitely extraordinary requiring infinitely extraordinary evidence, then that makes the negating proposition "God does not exist" un-falsifiable. and you're trying to tell me this is just rational to believe claims that are un-falsifiable? I think you would quickly change your mind if the same logic was turned against you.
[/quote]

There has never been a single thing that has ever been better explained by a supernatural explanation than a natural one.

Who ever claimed that the proposition that a god exists is infinitely extraordinary?

I am not making, nor do I believe the majority of atheists are either, the proposition that a god does not exist. I am only saying that I do not believe theists proposition that a god does exist has met it's burden of proof.

The time to believe a god exists is when there is demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic to support the claim, not a second before. That is critical thinking and skepticism 101.

[Doubting Thomas]

that's not moving the goal posts. that's you creating a straw man that involves God bending to your every whim, and me denying that.

Then it sucks for you that your god won't perform on command in order to prove his own existence. I guess he wants us to remain atheists then. Like we said, this would constitute evidence that he exists, but you say that it's not gonna happen. Not our problem.

the fact is, God doesn't give us everything we want. i'm not moving goal posts, that's how it is and it's supported by the bible.

Like I said, not my problem. All this does is point out the futility of prayer and certainly doesn't prove your god exists.

What was that empirical evidence you mentioned?

---

Why is it that every conversation started by a theist about what constitutes evidence devolves into atheists demanding evidence for god?

I believe the topic of this thread as started was "What could constitute enough evidence to prove that God exists?"

---

Speaking of evidence, what exactly is this empirical evidence for God's existence that AKD made reference to?

Like I said, if you have actual evidence it could change the world.

I doubt someone of your rational would be convinced. but I will post arguments on a new thread. right now, I have this argument I just posted.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-21217.html

Again with the "You just don't want to believe!" claim made by so many theists.

And an argument is not empirical evidence. Empirical means derived or provable by actual experiment or experience. Claiming something is impossible is not evidence for a god existing. Claiming that God doesn't have to answer prayers if he doesn't want to is not empirical.

[Minimalist]

Brian and Chas dealt with the issue quite well.

There is no evidence for your fucking god. That does not mean he is real.

[Brian37]

Brian and Chas dealt with the issue quite well.

There is no evidence for your fucking god. That does not mean he is real.

I did something right? You do know you are talking to an ABBA fan?

[Doubting Thomas]

Brian and Chas dealt with the issue quite well.

There is no evidence for your fucking god. That does not mean he is real.

But he's not shifting the burden of proof! He said he wasn't!

[Minimalist]

Thanks for picking up the light work with this clown.

Being way out west sometimes interferes with continuing discussions.

[Brian37]

Brian and Chas dealt with the issue quite well.

There is no evidence for your fucking god. That does not mean he is real.

But he's not shifting the burden of proof! He said he wasn't!

Shit, that means I have to give up football this Sunday! I meant Saturday. No Friday. DAMNED SABBATH!

[bennyboy]

If you say a super-kind loving God is watching over me, then I'll look around and see suffering, and conclude that the God isn't very effective at watching over people.

the problem of evil is answered by Plantinga's free will defense.

If God wanted only good, and had omniscient foresight, then he could not have allowed the existence of free-willed creatures who will create evil. Therefore, at creation, God knowingly created a system in which evil would exist. In what sense, then, is he all good? Look at the specific nature of evil in the world today-- starving or abused children, for example. If he is all-knowing and all-powerful, then why would he have allowed child rape?

A child-rape-allowing God doesn't seem fully good to me. Maybe you can explain how in God's mysterious ways these are good events?

And since Plantinga is all about free will, let me ask you this: has God given the child free will to resist or avoid the rape, or the power to escape the suffering of starvation? No.

[Minimalist]

Plantinga's free will defense.

Philosophical drivel.

Little more than mental masturbation.

[DeistPaladin]

If you want to know what kind of evidence you need to present, you need only read your Bible:

1. Yahweh could come down to earth and make a public speech.

Judges 1:1-2 Now after the death of Joshua it came to pass, that the children of Israel asked the LORD, saying, Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first, to fight against them? And the LORD said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand.

...or Yahweh could speak to us face to face.

Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

It's important to remember that Yahweh, your god, only later became this distant, enigmatic force in the universe. In the early books of the Bible, he was a "hands on" deity complete with an anthropomorphic incarnation. He commonly spoke to various prophets and interacted with them as a character in the story, frequently without the need for pyrotechnic effects like a burning bush.

Even in the New Testament, Yahweh wasn't shy about speaking directly to the people as a booming voice from Heaven.

Mark 1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

So how come Yahweh has become so shy today?

2. If the big guy can't make it, he can send one of his angels.

One of them could tell us "he is risen" as easily as they told Mary.

Matt 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

Or perhaps perform some other duty like a jailbreak or a public assassination:

Acts 5:19 But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth,
Acts 12:23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.

But hey, if none of the Heavenly Host can be bothered, perhaps the church can make good use of the holy artifacts to work magic like healing the sick. Sound like Indiana Jones? Just read Acts:

Acts 19:11-12 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.

What say we submit these magic artifacts to scientists who can perform repeated experiments under peer review?

Or hey, why bother with artifacts? Those of faith can work healing magic under medical peer review, complete with double-blind case studies to weed out the placebo.

Mark 16:17-18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

These are just a few verses I picked out for your consideration. There are many others that say much the same thing. The world of the Bible is drenched in the supernatural in overt ways that can't be mistaken for coincidence or natural occurrence. To quote every passage in the OT where "The Lord smote..." or "The Lord said unto..." would almost require reprinting the entire tome. The NT is similarly saturated with the supernatural, with people of faith working magic and invoking divine miracles that would rival any D&D campaign.

Then you put the Bible down and you look around, you see a very different universe than the one depicted in your scripture. The natural universe in which we live is a supernaturally tranquil place. Even by the accounts of your own religion in the modern day, your god works in a way mysterious to us. It seems that your god has become very withdrawn, the angels have moved away and no mortal has sufficient faith to even cast a Cure Light Wounds spell.

Do you begin to understand why I find the usual "step 1, blah blah blah, step 2 blah blah blah, step 3, therefore Jesus" arguments to be most underwhelming even before I point out all the fallacies? Given the promises of your scriptures and what they say about how the universe is supposed to work, it seems like you should be able to do better.