standard of evidence

[Rational AKD]

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

but then you are faced with the problem of saying "no evidence for God therefore he doesn't exist" which is textbook Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy. not to mention you are equivocating believability with rationality. that makes 2 fallacies with one sentence. you're on a roll.

"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?

it's a suspicion of mine.

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.

even if all that happened, i'm sure you would prefer solipsism over theism.

Until the whole world provides accounts of the same experience, all gods are considered as man-made.

textbook Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

How did man get to acquire information about this god in which you all believe, while finding no physical interaction with said god?

the information did come from physical interaction with God, at least according to the bible. and no, i'm not begging the question. i'm answering yours which is structured to be an inside inquiry.

[Doubting Thomas]

but then you are faced with the problem of saying "no evidence for God therefore he doesn't exist" which is textbook Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with that, because we're willing to change our minds if such evidence shows us to be wrong. Are you willing to change your mind about God if it could be proved that he doesn't exist?

There are an infinite number of things I don't believe in that all have no evidence for their existence. The number is only limited by human imagination. Doesn't mean I'm wrong for not believing in all of them.

[Brian37]

the information did come from physical interaction with God,

According to the bible, right and that is the problem. That is what is known as "circular reasoning".

If you had any evidence of "physical interaction with God", you could SHOW your data, have it falsified and peer reviewed OUTSIDE that book.

Otherwise if all it takes is quoting something then "I am a billionaire" simply because I claimed it.

That is a book of myth just like the Koran and Torah and Talmud and Reg Vedas. Human concocted myth, nothing more.

[Rational AKD]

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.

maybe because of these sources that prove you wrong.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

[atheism] The term atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, meaning godless. Atheos is derived from a, meaning "without," and theos, meaning "deity

http://www.pluralism.org/resources/tradi...theism.php
and many others. I don't feel like creating an exhaustive list just so you can ignore it.

[Doubting Thomas]

It just means "without belief in gods." That's all it means. It doesn't mean "someone who asserts there are no gods." I don't care what a lot of online definitions say, the basic definition is a- "without" theism "belief in a god."

So answer me this... do you believe in Zeus, yes or no?
If no, then have you proved completely that Zeus does not and never has ever existed as a deity?

If you haven't (and I assume you haven't because it's impossible) then why is it OK for you to commit the same fallacy you accuse us of committing?

[Rational AKD]

Honestly, I don't have a problem with that, because we're willing to change our minds if such evidence shows us to be wrong.

ok fine, just know the fact that you commit a fallacy to reason the proposition means you can't call it a rational one.

Are you willing to change your mind about God if it could be proved that he doesn't exist?

yes, I follow the truth wherever it leads. I don't think God is infallible as a proposition, though I've never seen any evidence against God. on top of that, he has more explanatory power than naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe. and there are several other arguments that have me convinced.

There are an infinite number of things I don't believe in that all have no evidence for their existence. The number is only limited by human imagination. Doesn't mean I'm wrong for not believing in all of them.

as I said before, it's fine to not believe. but to oppose as a default position is irrational. neutral skepticism is the rational default.

[Faith No More]

I've noticed a lot on these forums there are those who claim either that there is no evidence that supports theism or not enough. this brings a couple questions to my mind. 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? lets say there's an argument that consists of premises that are supported by empirical evidence and in and of themselves have no religious implication. the conclusions drawn from such premises would have religious implication and would logically be supported from the premises. would this count as empirical evidence?

I agree with Kant in that our understanding and knowledge of the phenomenal world cannot be extended to that of the noumenal one. Metaphysical answers fail because we have no way of knowing if the understanding we gain through our mental faculties is applicable beyond the phenomenal world. Thus, we cannot rely on purely metaphysical reasoning.

As for conclusions based upon empirical evidence, I think that depends on how far you try to extend your conclusion, i.e. we see that everything in the phenomenal world is preceded by a cause, but that does not allow us to make claims about cause and effect outside of spatial and temporal dimensions.

the next question I have is what is considered an adequate amount of evidence for theism? sometimes it seems people demand an unreasonable amount of evidence to the point where it is impossible to prove the proposition. I myself have a standard burden of proof for every proposition.
-if a proposition has more supporting evidence than its negating proposition, then it is most reasonable to believe that proposition (note that doesn't make the proposition itself true). if there is an equal amount or no evidence for a proposition and/or its negation, then it is most reasonable to believe in a neutral skeptical agnosticism concerning the propositions.
do you think this is fair?

I'm not sure if one simple standard for all claims can be determined, for if this were possible, there wouldn't be so many different conclusions based upon the same evidence. But here is the process I like to use. Firstly, there has to be the consideration of the support behind the positive argument and the support behind the negation of that argument. Then one has to take into account such things like how many assumptions must be made in order for the positive argument to be true, and does the argument appear to make intuitive sense. That latter part is tricky, as much of our knowledge must be taken a priori without actual proof. Then one has to weigh how well certain claims fit with his/her epistemological standard. For instance, I believe that all knowledge human beings attain must be understood in the context that it is discovered, which is that it always must understood that it has been perceived and filtered by the human brain. We must do our best to understand how the organizational and perceptual effects of the brain are influencing our attempt to gain knowledge.

All in all, I think it comes down to the individual and his/her viewpoints, not some objective standard that can be rigidly used for all claims.

[Brian37]

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.

maybe because of these sources that prove you wrong.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

[atheism] The term atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, meaning godless. Atheos is derived from a, meaning "without," and theos, meaning "deity

http://www.pluralism.org/resources/tradi...theism.php
and many others. I don't feel like creating an exhaustive list just so you can ignore it.

Stop it. This is a set up on your part to ignore the fact we don't give your pet deity claim any more weight than any other pet deity claim you don't believe in yourself.

Your personal flavor of Kool Aid is not special to us. Kool Aid is always Kool Aid and invisible sky daddies are fictional human concocted superstitions reflecting the respective cultures the fans live in.

Not that you will, but instead of debating atheists, debate a Muslim or Jew or Hindu, then maybe you can pull your head out of your ass and see what we see.

[Simon Moon]

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."

Problem solved.

The vast majority of atheists are not making a truth claim on the nonexistence of gods.

Disbelieving the theist claim that a god or gods exist does NOT mean that atheists have the inverse belief.

[Doubting Thomas]

ok fine, just know the fact that you commit a fallacy to reason the proposition means you can't call it a rational one.

As do you when you don't believe in every other deity that has ever existed and the infinite number of deities that haven't been imagined yet.

I'm just the same as you, I just disbelieve in one more god than you.