standard of evidence

[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.