standard of evidence

[LastPoet]

extraordinary things and extraordinary claims are not the same and you would do well not to commit an equivocation fallacy. and regardless, calling something an extraordinary thing is still subjective. I would agree that God is an extraordinary thing, but not that it is an extraordinary claim.
and why don't you read the definition of extraordinary and tell me exactly why it is subjective.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extraordinary

Another dodge. You still miss the point. Don't do hiding in semantics, it is you presenting the evidence, how can we test such evidence value? By mentally masturbating a god that somehow feels like you feel? Thanks, but no thanks.

[Rational AKD]

Another dodge. You still miss the point. Don't do hiding in semantics, it is you presenting the evidence, how can we test such evidence value? By mentally masturbating a god that somehow feels like you feel? Thanks, but no thanks.

you commit an equivocation fallacy and try to ask a loaded question and yet accuse me of dodging it for pointing these facts out? well, isn't this fun...
look, I understand it is my responsibility to bring evidence to substantiate my claim, but it is also your responsibility as the proponent to specify what qualifies as adequate evidence and an adequate amount of evidence. but it seems instead of answering, you try and justify having a ridiculous burden of proof on the theists with the extraordinary evidence claim even though that claim itself is subjective and of no logical value.

[bennyboy]

Rational AKD

Here's the thing. There's nothing observable which can be said to be God, unique to the things that are not-God. Even people who SAY they've seen God, no matter how respected, are talking about beams of light, burning bushes, men walking on water, people claiming to be healed, seemingly improbable coincidental events (I'm always on that ferry, but I called in sick once in my life and that's when the ferry sank), or just the good ol' creepy crawlies.

If someone told me about ice, and I'd never seen it, I'd ask what it was. They'd say it's a very cold white substance. Okay, that's an actual experience. Now, I have to question their INTERPRETATION of their experiences. If they said the white stuff was magical monkey pooh, I'd want to know why it was necessary to come to that conclusion. If they told me it fell from rainclouds on very cold days, and that they didn't really know what it was, but it was very cold to the touch-- okay, that sounds plausible, because they aren't interpreting their experiences by making stuff up.

So what evidence do you have?
Feelings of inspiration? Okay, you have evidence that people can feel inspired. If you INTERPRET that as the presence of God, you're making stuff up.
Burning bush? Okay, you have evidence that bushes can burn (not really a big revelation).
Voice coming from burning bush? Okay, you have evidence that people sometimes hear things that aren't really there. But we know about hallucinations, and about how intense heat and dehydration can cause them.
Man walking on water? Did anyone jump in there and check if there was a sand bar, or a sunken log or something, just under the surface?

In all these cases, the evidence is totally plausible, but the conclusion that they serve as evidence of God is non sequitur.


So what evidence do you have that God exists, which can ONLY be attributed to God? What experiences have you or other Christians had that cannot be attributed to pagans, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, or the hippie in the hemp shirt with the magic mushrooms in his pocket (who is probably more like Jesus than anyone else you know)?

[LastPoet]

you commit an equivocation fallacy and try to ask a loaded question and yet accuse me of dodging it for pointing these facts out? well, isn't this fun...
look, I understand it is my responsibility to bring evidence to substantiate my claim, but it is also your responsibility as the proponent to specify what qualifies as adequate evidence and an adequate amount of evidence. but it seems instead of answering, you try and justify having a ridiculous burden of proof on the theists with the extraordinary evidence claim even though that claim itself is subjective and of no logical value.

You seem to go word-by-word calling fallacy, and there is the fallacy of fallacy. Your attempt to stain informal discourse to your profit, fails. You are still dodging. Show us a god!

[Minimalist]

Find an amputee. Make sure there isn't a doctor in sight. Have your particular deity regrow the missing limb in full fiew of witnesses in the wink of an eye.

That would be a very good start.

Call me when you have arranged that.

[Rational AKD]

Rational AKD

Here's the thing. There's nothing observable which can be said to be God, unique to the things that are not-God. Even people who SAY they've seen God, no matter how respected, are talking about beams of light, burning bushes, men walking on water, people claiming to be healed, seemingly improbable coincidental events (I'm always on that ferry, but I called in sick once in my life and that's when the ferry sank), or just the good ol' creepy crawlies.

If someone told me about ice, and I'd never seen it, I'd ask what it was. They'd say it's a very cold white substance. Okay, that's an actual experience. Now, I have to question their INTERPRETATION of their experiences. If they said the white stuff was magical monkey pooh, I'd want to know why it was necessary to come to that conclusion. If they told me it fell from rainclouds on very cold days, and that they didn't really know what it was, but it was very cold to the touch-- okay, that sounds plausible, because they aren't interpreting their experiences by making stuff up.

So what evidence do you have?
Feelings of inspiration? Okay, you have evidence that people can feel inspired. If you INTERPRET that as the presence of God, you're making stuff up.
Burning bush? Okay, you have evidence that bushes can burn (not really a big revelation).
Voice coming from burning bush? Okay, you have evidence that people sometimes hear things that aren't really there. But we know about hallucinations, and about how intense heat and dehydration can cause them.
Man walking on water? Did anyone jump in there and check if there was a sand bar, or a sunken log or something, just under the surface?

In all these cases, the evidence is totally plausible, but the conclusion that they serve as evidence of God is non sequitur.


So what evidence do you have that God exists, which can ONLY be attributed to God? What experiences have you or other Christians had that cannot be attributed to pagans, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, or the hippie in the hemp shirt with the magic mushrooms in his pocket (who is probably more like Jesus than anyone else you know)?

wow, a lengthy response that still dodges the 2 main questions. ok, i'll tackle a few of your claims.

There's nothing observable which can be said to be God, unique to the things that are not-God.

that is not a prerequisite. there's also no way to observe a black hole, you can only observe gravitational effects and draw the conclusion that it's a black hole.

If they said the white stuff was magical monkey pooh, I'd want to know why it was necessary to come to that conclusion.

that is a terrible representation of a parody to an argument I would use. to show God exists, I would use either inductive or deductive reasoning, not come up with a random explanation for an observation.

If they told me it fell from rainclouds on very cold days, and that they didn't really know what it was, but it was very cold to the touch-- okay, that sounds plausible because they aren't interpreting their experiences by making stuff up.

so you're saying something is plausible if they don't add their personal interpretation to what they see? I wonder if you really think that...

Voice coming from burning bush? Okay, you have evidence that people sometimes hear things that aren't really there.

just as I thought, observations aren't always plausible. if someone claims to have observed something and you don't like the implications you can simply claim it as a hallucination. you can't even keep your explanation consistent.

Burning bush? Okay, you have evidence that bushes can burn (not really a big revelation).

funny thing is they actually describe it as a burning bush that is not being consumed. that would be a little more like a revelation, though you conveniently left that bit out for your point.

In all these cases, the evidence is totally plausible, but the conclusion that they serve as evidence of God is non sequitur.

you know what's also true? I would not use a single one of these to show God exists. you're simply using straw mans and false parodies of arguments and generalizing that I would use them or something like them.

lastly, you don't seem to want to answer the questions I have. I have 2 simple questions. what kind of evidence is acceptable to show God exists, and how much evidence is adequate? it would be much appreciated if these questions were answered rather than dodged.

[Brian37]

DNA is proven fact. Evolution is proven fact. Those are universal standards to allow humans to study biology.

Comic book claims of humans magically popping out of dirt are myths. Women magically popping out of a man's rib is a myth.

Babies come out of vaginas and are not caused by "poof daddies" playing Barry White music to Marry.

What you "notice" here is reason based on facts, not wishful thinking based on ancient comic books.

[LastPoet]

Short answer, anything. If you know something about god, share with us a method to find that god, don't waste our time with apologetic rethoric.

[max-greece]

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.

[Rational AKD]

You seem to go word-by-word calling fallacy, and there is the fallacy of fallacy. Your attempt to stain informal discourse to your profit, fails. You are still dodging. Show us a god!

yes very good, there is a fallacy fallacy. unfortunately you don't seem to know what it is. the fallacy fallacy is when you claim someone is wrong because they use a bad argument or a logical fallacy. I didn't claim that. I claim your argument is invalid because you use a logical fallacy. that's not committing the fallacy fallacy. a rule of thumb you can use is when they are attacking the conclusion because of faulty logic in the argument, it's the fallacy fallacy. if they just attack the argument, it's not. and i'm still dodging? let me make a parody the argument.
A: how much evidence do we need?
B: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
A: that's subjective.
B: why?
A: the dictionary says so.
B: you're dodging.

---

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.