standard of evidence

[DeistPaladin]

there's more to establishing truth of a claim than just explanatory power, though it is a factor. you may be the first rational response. but just a correction, burden of proof doesn't just apply to claim of "X" exists, but also "X" does not exist. to be more accurate, it would be proposition X is true. this includes not just positive existence claims, but also negative existence claims.

In spite of what you've read in the dictionary, if you ask atheists, they will tell you it's a lack of a belief in any god or gods. It's a skeptical position of the claims of theism. You will be hard pressed to find any atheists who will make the positive claim "there is no god" (except perhaps when they're just being provocative). I have known only one who will do so and even he will tell you it's a position of faith.

Most atheists, if not all, are quite aware that it's impossible to prove a negative, that any "X" does not exist. Recently, I hear they combed Loch Ness with sonar looking for any trace of the supposed dinosaur who legend says resides there. They couldn't find anything. Perhaps Nessie was just hiding really well that day?

When it comes to "God", we have even deeper problems disproving the existence of this being because the definition is really vague (I'd disagree with most of what you define as "God") and unlike a dinosaur in Loch Ness or Bigfoot, it's not a physical being you can detect through normal means.

Consequently, most atheists will explain to you that the label is a lack of a belief, describing what someone is not. "I see no reason to believe in any god or gods" would be a statement most, if not all, would agree with.

a negating position such as "God doesn't exist" is not a default position. the default position is one of ignorance such as "God may or may not exist but I don't know."

This position would also be consistent with atheism. If you don't know whether or not "X" exists, you still lack a belief that "X" exists. This is why many atheists are also agnostics. Agnostic is about what you admit you don't know. Atheism is about what you lack a belief in.

likewise, a host of witnesses would be enough to establish having dinner with your dead father is more rational than grand conspiracy or mass hallucination. you may not believe it, but that's not the point.

If you seriously believe that eye-witness accounts alone are sufficient to seriously believe a dead man came back from the grave and had lunch with his son, I would strongly advise that you take your mom or dad with you when you buy your next used car.

actually, no you haven't. you've only established the difference between accepting something common and accepting something extreme. none of that has anything to do with burden of proof.

It has everything to do with the burden of proof. The more outlandish the claim, the more evidence is required. It's how we operate in all areas of life outside of a favorite religion.

Oh, by the way, God spoke to me just now and told me to tell you to renounce Jesus. Do you believe me? Why not?

did I ever suggest that? I said from the start, would arguments with empirically backed premises be sufficient? this would be a logically valid argument with premises with enough empirical evidence to be almost uncontroversial.

I have not seen any "proofs" for Christianity that had much empirical evidence. Most are highly abstract with many assumptions.

Christians can't produce any of the hard evidence we should expect, reading the Bible. Christians can't demonstrate faith healing under medical peer review, using double-blind testing to eliminate the placebo effect, despite how Jesus said those of faith should be able to. They can't produce magical artifacts like Paul's magic handkerchiefs that can cast out demons. They can't find any angels nor arrange an interview with their god, despite how angels and booming voices abounded in the Bible. All they have is "blah blah blah, therefore Jesus".

that's not at all what I was talking about. this would be how I would structure an argument. if A is true then B. A is true, therefore B. and I would show empirical evidence for A. the only way to debunk such an argument is to show A is false or my logic is invalid. if you can't refute it, then it is most rational to believe it even though it may be hard (assuming you looked into it yourself before determining the conclusion is true).

I think you're going to have to provide me with some specific examples for me to understand what you're talking about.

so a sound argument doesn't meet burden of proof even though a sound argument has a necessarily true conclusion?

Correct for extraordinary claims like the ones religion makes.

if that were necessary to prove Jedi's existed then there would be no way to prove it when they all die.

The Force would still surely exist and such energy could be discovered. There would still be video documentation and other forms of reliable evidence.