standard of evidence

[Rational AKD]

For all the calls of "fallacy!" you do, you seem to not realize when you make an ad hoc hypothesis.

first, it's not ad hoc. second, ad hoc is not necessarily a fallacy. the reason it's not ad hoc is because i'm not really adding or changing anything to the claims of the bible. though he did say many people attribute natural events to gods, that doesn't specifically target Christianity. the original proposition is God created the universe. he claimed the universe self sustains itself, and I claim that's because that's how he created it. I added to the explanation of the claim, but not the claim itself.

[Doubting Thomas]

that's a false association. it is not necessary for God to heal anyone who prays.

Ad hoc hypothesis. You're shifting the goal posts.

in contrast, the tooth fairy is supposed to take all teeth as long as you put them under your pillow. one has a necessary obligation and the other doesn't.

There's no necessary obligation to the Tooth Fairy, either. What if something happens and she can't collect the teeth? Didn't you see Rise of the Guardians?

this is going around in a never ending circle... I realize you don't have a claim that God doesn't exist, but you've still claimed that such a proposition is more rational than saying "God exists." so nice try, you still can't avoid burden of proof.

It is more rational. Sorry, but that's life. I'm sorry you can't prove that your god exists, but that's not really my problem. It's more rational to not believe in something until some sort of evidence is shown for it to exist. It's certainly more rational than believing in everything anyone can imagine until it's possible to totally disprove it.

[Rational AKD]

Ad hoc hypothesis. You're shifting the goal posts.

tell me where I moved the goal posts. did I ever say it was necessary for God to do that?

It is more rational. Sorry, but that's life. I'm sorry you can't prove that your god exists, but that's not really my problem. It's more rational to not believe in something until some sort of evidence is shown for it to exist.

really? lets put that to the test. we can't experience anything outside our consciousness. it is possible everything we experience is an illusion. reality thus can't be established as true any more than 50/50. since "It's more rational to not believe in something until some sort of evidence is shown for it to exist" it is most rational to not believe in this reality. see how ridiculous your statement is? but let me guess what your response will be. "that doesn't count blah blah blah... special pleading blah blah blah."

It's certainly more rational than believing in everything anyone can imagine until it's possible to totally disprove it.

no it's not. believing a proposition is false without evidence is just as bad as believing it's true without evidence. likewise, believing it's irrational without evidence is just as bad as believing it's rational without evidence. if there's no evidence for or against a proposition, both claims of knowledge are equally plausible and the most rational position is neutral skeptic or ignorance.

[Doubting Thomas]

You're moving the goal posts when we say, "here's an amputee, have God heal him." Knowing that that would never happen, you move the goal posts by saying "God doesn't have to answer our prayers."

Aside from that bible passage saying that whatever you need, if you pray for it God will give it to you, and aside from asking "What's the point of prayer then?" you're just moving the goal posts further away to where we can't score. You're just inventing a reason for God to not cure an amputee, and this after we're saying what would be ample evidence for proving a god's existence.

[Faith No More]

Why is it that every conversation started by a theist about what constitutes evidence devolves into atheists demanding evidence for god?

I'm starting to think that many atheists have a fear of discussing anything but specific evidence for god...

[bennyboy]

no it's not. believing a proposition is false without evidence is just as bad as believing it's true without evidence. likewise, believing it's irrational without evidence is just as bad as believing it's rational without evidence. if there's no evidence for or against a proposition, both claims of knowledge are equally plausible and the most rational position is neutral skeptic or ignorance.

You're missing an important point. The entire world, and our experience of it, are taken as important sources of evidence. If you say a super-kind loving God is watching over me, then I'll look around and see suffering, and conclude that the God isn't very effective at watching over people. If you say your super-kind loving God is all-powerful, then I'll look around and see evil in the world, and decide that your two statements are incompatible with each other. EITHER what you've said about God is false, or God cannot logically exist, based on the evidence of my mundane life.

Now, if you want to talk about a Deist God, i.e. a universe-creating entity, that's different. But you don't get to build a bridge from a philosophical creative entity to Sky Daddy.

---

I'm starting to think that many atheists have a fear of discussing anything but specific evidence for god...

I'm starting to think you have a fear of discussing anything but specific evidence for the purple space monkeys in my dresser...

[Doubting Thomas]

Speaking of evidence, what exactly is this empirical evidence for God's existence that AKD made reference to?

Like I said, if you have actual evidence it could change the world.

[Rational AKD]

You're moving the goal posts when we say, "here's an amputee, have God heal him." Knowing that that would never happen, you move the goal posts by saying "God doesn't have to answer our prayers."

that's not moving the goal posts. that's you creating a straw man that involves God bending to your every whim, and me denying that. and no, i'm not denying it just because I know it won't happen. it can be shown all over in the bible that God doesn't always do as we ask.

Aside from that bible passage saying that whatever you need, if you pray for it God will give it to you, and aside from asking "What's the point of prayer then?"

i'm guessing you are referring to matthew 7:7. the problem is this passage is not saying anything and everything under the sun you ask and you shall receive. if you read the context, you can see he's referring to prayers that ask for wisdom of better judgment, relevant to what is said in verses 1-6. what's the point of prayer? to connect with God, show thanks, and ask for what you need. he won't give you everything you want because you ask.

you're just moving the goal posts further away to where we can't score.

you act as though your argument is a new one. it's one that's been around since Christianity itself. the fact is, God doesn't give us everything we want. i'm not moving goal posts, that's how it is and it's supported by the bible.

[Faith No More]

I'm starting to think you have a fear of discussing anything but specific evidence for the purple space monkeys in my dresser...

Those are actually blue apes.

[Rational AKD]

If you say a super-kind loving God is watching over me, then I'll look around and see suffering, and conclude that the God isn't very effective at watching over people.

the problem of evil is answered by Plantinga's free will defense.

---

Speaking of evidence, what exactly is this empirical evidence for God's existence that AKD made reference to?

Like I said, if you have actual evidence it could change the world.

I doubt someone of your rational would be convinced. but I will post arguments on a new thread. right now, I have this argument I just posted.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-21217.html