standard of evidence

[Minimalist]

I'm going to guess "no."

These clowns never get it.

[FallentoReason]

The NT is similarly saturated with the supernatural, with people of faith working magic and invoking divine miracles that would rival any D&D campaign.

I admire the poetic license at work in your posts haha!

[Cheerful Charlie]

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?

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?

To start with,many theists claim knowledge of god based on revelation?
Which revelation? Christianity, Islam, Mormonism? The Vedas, revealed to us by inspired rishis? Greek myths, revealed by inspired poets?
Mankind has had many, many allegedly inspired revelations that are obviously false as they disagree with each other. since we know that, we know inspiration is questionable. With so many erroneous 'revelations' its quite possible ALL revelations are indeed false. So we have circular problem here, to prove revelation you have to prove God exists, so you cannot guarantee God's existence by appealing to revelation.

Many so called revelations such as Christianity and Islam makes claims about the nature and attributes of God that are self contradictory and thus impossible.
We can discard those.

Now, what evidence is there? Of What? God? A few Gods? Many Gods? Many not quite Godlike beings? A hylozoic Universe? No gods at all, naturalism?

Plato in his "The Laws - Book X" invented natural theology, trying to demonstrate that God exists, aiming it squarely and explicitly at atheists. Today, 2300 years later, theologians and philosophers have uniformly agreed natural theology fails.

There is no logical proof or evidence for any god(s). After 2,300 years, the best minds in the world produced no evidence for God. And not for want of trying. The burden of proof is very definitely on theism.

Strong atheism notes the claims made about God's attributes and nature and the
contradictions they create and so we can safely say, the grand gods of grand theologies are failures.

I am a strong atheist. The many different kinds of gods all have self contradictions that demonstrate their impossibility. And one can fill entire large libraries with theological works that have no knock down, end of argument, QED proofs of God.

Where do we go from here?

Can you produce the evidence or proof of God millenias of theologians and philosophers could not find? Can you establish one and only one revelation as a true revelation with no possibility of error?

Cheerful Charlie

[Tonus]

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?

I'm wondering what theists consider positive evidence to support the proposition that god exists.

[Cheerful Charlie]

Well, you could suck my dick for all eternity, it still wouldn't prove god. Hell, mabe.

the thread I posted doesn't aspire to prove God, it only asks what kind of evidence is acceptable and how much is adequate. unfortunately, you and everyone else all seem incapable of giving a minimum reasonable standard.

If in fact, there is no God, there never will be evidence for God, will there? If after Plato's invention of natural theology, 2300 years later, theologians and philosophers of religion admit there is no real evidence for God, then that should be accounted as a strong clue from the Universe to us.

Cheerful Charlie

---

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?

Oboy! It's another online dictionary war! Just paw through the dictionaries until you find the definition you want. Or just pick the first definition that comes along and ignore the fact that many dictionaries are so simple minded about such things, they are mostly useless and misleading.

An atheist is one who does not believe in god. Whether with good reason, bad reason, no reason at all does not matter. Will there ever be an online dictionary thatt gets this right and is number 1 when googling for the defintion of atheist?

.

---

if it can be shown to be impossible, it would be most rational to accept that. but the problem is no one has done so. and if there is no evidence at all supporting it, then it is most rational to not accept God exists but also not rule it out. you can only rule out the impossible.

See if you can spot the pattern.

"If it can be shown that Allah is impossible, it would be most rational to accept that"
"If it can be shown that Yawheh is impossible, it would be most rational to accept that"
"If it can be shown that Vishnu is impossible, it would be most rational to accept that"
"If it can be shown that I cant fart an invisible Lamborghini out of my ass, it would be most rational to accept that".

Filling a gap can be done with an infinite number of bullshit naked assertions. How much time do you waste trying to prove I cant fart and invisible Lamborghini out of my ass? Something says to me even before you read the first letter in this last sentence you rightfully dismissed that absurd claim, and did so without doing any work.


Point being you are shifting the burden of proof. You can make whatever naked assertion you want, but I am not going to swallow it simply because you can string words together.

I have absolutely no obligation to disprove your claims anymore than you would have to "disprove" farting an invisible Lamborghini out of my ass.

Any claim that starts with a naked assertion can only be propped up with crap.

Any assertion made with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.


.

---

No I don't. I simply have to find that the case for the existence of a god has not met its burden of proof.

then how do you show the proposition God doesn't exist is more rational than the proposition God does exist? let me guess... lack of evidence? do I have to say it?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

Agnosticism is not some sort of middle ground between belief and disbelief. Agnosticism concerns what is known and/or knowable.

Most atheists do not claim to KNOW, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist. Therefore, most atheists are also agnostic.

There are only 2 possibilities: theism or atheism.

It's really simple, belief is the psychological state in which one holds that premise to be true.

To be a theist, one has to hold the premise that a god or gods exist is true. ANYTHING else is atheism.

any belief proposing a certainty of more than 50% in truth value and by its nature less than 50% for the negating proposition requires burden of proof. if they are exactly the same in plausibility, you can't say one is more rational than the other. you must say they are equally plausible if both sides have equal evidence or no evidence.

If you tell me you have a herd of invisible elephants you keep in your garage, I can dismiss your claim. I am not obligated to disprove your ridiculous and impossible claim.

Now on atheism, the claims of revealed religions that God has certain attributes is easy to deal with. omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence all soon create self contradictions the eliminate such omni-everything creator gods.

The grand gods of grand theologies are impossible, and the greater and more maximalist you make them, the easier they are to demonstrate they are impossible.


.

[Cheerful Charlie]

no, I don't. as I've said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Incorrect. The fact that no one has found El Dorado in the American South West in the 4 centuries since the Spanish dreamed it up is not evidence that it exists.

The fact that it has not been found is, in fact, strong evidence that the whole tale is bullshit.

So, because he can show no evidence against the Invisible Pink Unicorn, he should not (by his own reasoning) dismiss the IPU's existence. Or any other ludicrous religions, occultisms, madmens' cult ramblings. Its all valid!

.

[bennyboy]

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, if the existence of an entity is asserted due to evidence for it.

[Cheerful Charlie]

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

Baloney. Plantinga claims God values free will so that he must allow evil done by our free will. His free will defense in a nutshell.

But God does not.

Romans 11. Why did the Jews not accept Jesus as son of God and messiah? Because God hardened the hearts not to. Now it is not said why God did not change the Jews to all believe, or all men in fact. It is a simply stupid chapter that tells us God does not value our free will.

Plantinga's FWD is based on some rather big strawmen and is simply not correct.

There are other strawmen involved in Plantinga's FWD.

Cheerful Charlie

---

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.

Mark 16
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Mark 11:23
23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

John 14
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

James 5
13 Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms.
14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

The bible makes claims that are obviously false. End of argument. No further special pleading accepted.

Cheerful Charlie

[Minimalist]

That's not what you said in post #103. Make up your mind.

I said:

as I've said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. if theism lacks substantiating evidence, all that shows is that the proposition hasn't been established to be true.

how is that inconsistent with what I just said?

No, that is not what you said. Unluckily for you the editing is obvious.

What you said was "all that shows is that the proposition hasn't been established to be true. but that doesn't automatically mean it's false or unlikely.


And the answer is, Yes, unfortunately for you it does. The utter failure to produce evidence for any position...not just your sky-daddy...is highly suggestive that the position is false or unlikely.

The rational mind will admit that the subsequent presentation of evidence can overturn such a determination but we are under no obligation to sit on our asses waiting for you to produce suitable evidence. I, for example, am still waiting for you to produce that amputee to heal that I asked for way back at the beginning in Post #15.

Why is it so difficult for your god to re-grow an arm or a leg?

[Angrboda]

"Rational AKD has left the building."



He's a shit 'n runner, folks. Stayed for ten days, been gone ten days.