standard of evidence

[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.