(October 2, 2013 at 11:42 am)Rational AKD Wrote:
(October 2, 2013 at 11:40 am)max-greece Wrote: So the question appears to be why do we need such strong evidence, relatively, for God as opposed to other things (like Quarks).
Its a reasonable question and deserves a reasonable but brief answer, namely:
I am not expected to worship a quark, nor am I commanded to love that Quark. God on other hand appears to demand both whilst quarks make no demands of me whatsoever.
Its not, however, all bad news. You (probably) claim your God is all-powerful, all-knowing and so on. For that God to provide sufficient evidence of his existence to an atheist must be a walk in the park.
So just put in a request and we'll be waiting here.
irrelevant. to say a claim requires more evidence because of the implications of how it impacts your life is an appeal to consequence fallacy. all claims require equal burden of proof, and lifestyle implications have absolutely no baring on the proposition's truth value.
Don't be a twat. Whether or not quarks exist has little or no bearing on my life. If you want me to accept a God however you are going to need to prove it to me if he is expecting worship.
That isn't a fallacy - I have every right to demand more proof.
In other words I am telling you the standard of proof I require and why. Whether you regard it as a philosophical fallacy makes no difference. That is what I require as I live in the real world.