standard of evidence

[Brian37]

lack of evidence doesn't make something improbable.

There is no evidence that Martians invaded Nebraska in 1880. That does not mean that it happened.

Likewise, there is no evidence for your god or any other gods which man has invented.

Try to string the two thoughts together.

Shit, so you mean to tell me the Weekly World News was lying to me? Next you are going to tell me Fox News isn't fair and balanced. WHY WHY WHY AM I ALWAYS THE LAST TO KNOW!

[Rational AKD]

"arguments" are not proof.

did I say proof? I could have sworn I was asking if they counted as "empirical evidence."

They can be skewed to presuppose the desired answer.

that's why you use logic to determine if the argument is valid. then you look at the evidence to determine if the premises are true to determine if the argument is sound. if the argument is sound, then its conclusion is true.

They are as bad as anecdotal evidence, which agian is not acceptable.

no, they're not. at least, not when you use logic to determine validity and soundness. quick lesson, a valid argument is when the truth of the conclusion is directly related to the truth of the premises. so a valid argument is true if its premises are true. a sound argument is a valid argument with true premises. so the conclusion of a sound argument is necessarily true. establishing these things determine the truth of the conclusion of an argument.

Lets look at these on a case by case basis. This question is too general to answer here.

the point of the question being general is to prevent special pleading fallacy. it shouldn't be too hard to answer; does a valid argument whose premises are supported by empirical evidence count as empirical evidence?

I don't even know what a god is supposed to be.

lets just say he is a necessary being who created the universe, who is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. that's a minimum definition in modern philosophy.

I have seen some descriptions say stupid things like he is a "being outside of time and space" what does this even mean.

that he is an un-embodied mind that exists outside space-time. a mind requires no space to exist, so it's not logically absurd.

And even the pathetic god is love, god is mercy and god is the foundation of morality which is just anthropomorphising abstract concepts.

actually those are figurative descriptions of God, not literal ones. saying "God is love" is like saying "I am hungry." and the figurative description is used to indicate all love comes from God, not that he's literally love.

Only if you want to delude yourself.

And I can see that you do.

oh? you offer criticism without a counter? that's nice... can you at least tell me why it is more rational to believe God doesn't exist than to believe he does? preferably without using the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam please.

And I am telling you why that standard has to be beyond reasonable. There's nothing irrational about it.

that's a new one. there's nothing irrational about something being beyond reasonable. well, that was so bad you earn 10 hours of derp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQB4nAjZIdE

A fish and chip shop moves into the building next to mine. I have some concerns over the impact on my health - I go and ask some questions, get answers and decide its OK.

A nuclear reactor moves into the building next to mine. I have some concerns over the impact on my health - I go and ask a lot of fucking questions - way more than I would for the shop and I expect a much better quality of answer.

again, your examples are not related because you use them as an equivocation fallacy. the examples are related to the interest of people, but i'm talking about rational proof which is independent and unrelated to interests. why don't you use an example of 2 different things of equal interest so it's not a factor because factoring personal interests in logical arguments results in many fallacies.

[max-greece]

"why don't you use an example of 2 different things of equal interest so it's not a factor because factoring personal interests in logical arguments results in many fallacies."

Because the examples better fit the god/no god choice that 2 options which have equal bearing.

[pocaracas]

Well, I'm stumped...
Is there an new theist book out, or some widely viewed youtube video?
Last week, it was Drich with that "what do you consider to be sufficient evidence for the existence of god?"... then came vinny... now you.

"Whatever the atheist thinks is his minimum amount of evidence, if we provide it, they'll move the goalpost and make up a higher evidence requirement"... isn't that your corollary?


For me, I've said it before, and I'll say it again... if an entity which is "a necessary being who created the universe, who is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect." exists, I would only believe it does if it presented itself to me and, simultaneously (or with a bit of delay so he doesn't wake anyone up), to everyone else in the whole world. Spend some time with each and every one of us. Impart on us some of its infinite wisdom. Make all the magic tricks each one of us requires to accept that entity as a real magic man and creator of universes (how hard can it be to create a lump of gold?). And then, show up again with some periodicity, just to keep in touch and not get lost in past memories and provide the younger generations with the same level of experience.

Until the whole world provides accounts of the same experience, all gods are considered as man-made.
How did man get to acquire information about this god in which you all believe, while finding no physical interaction with said god?

[max-greece]

I dunno - I'd expect an omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect being to fucking know what proof was required without me having to tell her.

[Minimalist]

There is no evidence that Martians invaded Nebraska in 1880. That does not mean that it happened.

Likewise, there is no evidence for your god or any other gods which man has invented.

Try to string the two thoughts together.

Shit, so you mean to tell me the Weekly World News was lying to me? Next you are going to tell me Fox News isn't fair and balanced. WHY WHY WHY AM I ALWAYS THE LAST TO KNOW!

One reason it would seem is that you watch FOX!

[Rational AKD]

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.

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. 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."

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...

the problem with your examples is the same mistake made by many. believability is not the same as rational. different people accept different beliefs with different standards of evidence, but that doesn't make any of them rational and is an equivocation to say otherwise. the person may challenge a claim more based on his believability, but that doesn't make his challenges rational either. for your first example, yes I can agree it is easier to prove than your third example. but the standards of evidence don't change. you can have a host of witnesses attest to you having dinner with your wife and it would establish it as a more rational position than you lying. 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.

OK, so we've established how outlandish the claims of religion are.

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. accepting extraordinary claims may be harder for us, but that doesn't mean it's less possible. probable, maybe. but appeal to probability is a logical fallacy as well. you can't use probability to say something didn't happen, or say it requires more evidence to determine if it happened.

by themselves and without hard evidence backing them

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.

They might be useful in proving scenario A but would fall short of meeting the burden of proof for B, never mind C.

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).

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.

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

Consider the original Star Wars movie.

that indeed would meet burden of proof, though I wouldn't say it is a minimum requirement. consider this, if that were necessary to prove Jedi's existed then there would be no way to prove it when they all die. so after they all die, it would be impossible to prove Jedi's existed. at that point and time then, the proposition "Jedi's don't exist" is un-falsifiable. how can you say a proposition is rational if it's un-falsifiable? the more rational approach is saying direct observed evidence is adequate, but multiple reliable attestations throughout history is also accurate.

[Brian37]

Shit, so you mean to tell me the Weekly World News was lying to me? Next you are going to tell me Fox News isn't fair and balanced. WHY WHY WHY AM I ALWAYS THE LAST TO KNOW!

One reason it would seem is that you watch FOX!

That is the last time I channel serf when I am tired. I woke up in the morning wanting to fuck Ann Coulter, and found myself praising Rush Limbaugh. EWE!

[Doubting Thomas]

Again you're not getting that ATHEISM DOES NOT CONSIST OF THE CLAIM THAT THERE ABSOLUTELY ARE NO GODS ANYWHERE. Atheism is simply not believing in any gods, period. I don't know why you and other Christians on this forum can't seem to understand that. I don't have a burden of proof for my disbelief in yours or anyone else's god. Now if I were to make the claim that absolutely no gods exist anywhere, then I'd have a burden of proof, but I'm not saying that.

Any more claims of "atheists have a burden of proof" are just simply attempts to shift the burden of proof from the theists. I know of not one atheist here who makes the claim that there are absolutely no gods anywhere in the universe.

[Minimalist]

The probability of the existence of any of the gods invented by humanity is so small as to be inconsequential, however.

---

One reason it would seem is that you watch FOX!

That is the last time I channel serf when I am tired. I woke up in the morning wanting to fuck Ann Coulter, and found myself praising Rush Limbaugh. EWE!

Ugh. I wouldn't fuck her with your dick.