Posts: 326
Threads: 9
Joined: September 29, 2013
Reputation:
7
standard of evidence
October 2, 2013 at 8:51 am
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?
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
Posts: 18504
Threads: 79
Joined: May 29, 2010
Reputation:
125
RE: standard of evidence
October 2, 2013 at 9:02 am
(This post was last modified: October 2, 2013 at 9:03 am by LastPoet.)
(October 2, 2013 at 8:51 am)Rational AKD Wrote: 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.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if I told you I have a car in my garage, you wouldn't require much evidence. If I had a ferrari f-40, you may be in need of more evidence. If I told you that my ferrari is invisible and it may be seen only by those that truly believe™ it is there, how do you go about proving that?
If you understood the analogy, there is also the fact that there are alot of religions, how do you go about proving yours is the right one, since there is no way to show it?
Posts: 326
Threads: 9
Joined: September 29, 2013
Reputation:
7
RE: standard of evidence
October 2, 2013 at 9:13 am
(October 2, 2013 at 9:02 am)LastPoet Wrote: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if I told you I have a car in my garage, you wouldn't require much evidence. If I had a ferrari f-40, you may be in need of more evidence. If I told you that my ferrari is invisible and it may be seen only by those that truly believe™ it is there, how do you go about proving that?
If you understood the analogy, there is also the fact that there are alot of religions, how do you go about proving yours is the right one, since there is no way to show it?
the extraordinary claims objection is not a rational objection by any means due to the fact that it's completely subjective. how do you objectively determine whether something is an extraordinary claim? you can't any more than you can claim pizza is the best tasting food. different people have different opinions on what is extraordinary. to a prince in a tropical climate who has never seen ice before, the very description of ice would to him seem extraordinary. does this mean he is justified not believing there is ice? of course not.
the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence claim is nothing more than a catchy phrase with no practical value.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: standard of evidence
October 2, 2013 at 9:19 am
(October 2, 2013 at 9:13 am)Rational AKD Wrote: (October 2, 2013 at 9:02 am)LastPoet Wrote: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if I told you I have a car in my garage, you wouldn't require much evidence. If I had a ferrari f-40, you may be in need of more evidence. If I told you that my ferrari is invisible and it may be seen only by those that truly believe™ it is there, how do you go about proving that?
If you understood the analogy, there is also the fact that there are alot of religions, how do you go about proving yours is the right one, since there is no way to show it?
the extraordinary claims objection is not a rational objection by any means due to the fact that it's completely subjective. how do you objectively determine whether something is an extraordinary claim? you can't any more than you can claim pizza is the best tasting food. different people have different opinions on what is extraordinary. to a prince in a tropical climate who has never seen ice before, the very description of ice would to him seem extraordinary. does this mean he is justified not believing there is ice? of course not.
the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence claim is nothing more than a catchy phrase with no practical value.
Until you actually show him some ice, then if he is a rational person he will accept it.
Therefore, bad analogy.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 326
Threads: 9
Joined: September 29, 2013
Reputation:
7
RE: standard of evidence
October 2, 2013 at 9:24 am
(This post was last modified: October 2, 2013 at 9:36 am by Rational AKD.)
(October 2, 2013 at 9:19 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Until you actually show him some ice, then if he is a rational person he will accept it.
Therefore, bad analogy.
I disagree. I would say multiple independent attestations are adequate to confirm it exists. though you can certainly confirm it doesn't require an extraordinary amount of evidence, or even being shown ice wouldn't be enough, because how do you know it's really ice and not an elaborate hoax?
also, there's a problem of conflicting subjective opinions. to a Christian, the proposition of theism is not extraordinary at all, but to an atheist it is. so who's opinion trumps the other and why? this is why subjective claims can't be in any sense logical and don't belong in rational discussion concerning claims of truth.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
Posts: 18504
Threads: 79
Joined: May 29, 2010
Reputation:
125
RE: standard of evidence
October 2, 2013 at 9:41 am
(This post was last modified: October 2, 2013 at 9:42 am by LastPoet.)
(October 2, 2013 at 9:13 am)Rational AKD Wrote: the extraordinary claims objection is not a rational objection by any means due to the fact that it's completely subjective. Why?
Quote:how do you objectively determine whether something is an extraordinary claim? you can't any more than you can claim pizza is the best tasting food. different people have different opinions on what is extraordinary. to a prince in a tropical climate who has never seen ice before, the very description of ice would to him seem extraordinary. does this mean he is justified not believing there is ice? of course not.
the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence claim is nothing more than a catchy phrase with no practical value.
Your analogy is completely off what I tried to convey. Nice attempt to dodge, but a god is an extraordinary thing, is it not?
Posts: 4940
Threads: 99
Joined: April 17, 2011
Reputation:
45
RE: standard of evidence
October 2, 2013 at 9:46 am
Like I said to Vinny on another thread, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That works well enough to send someone to prison for the rest of their life, so it should be good enough to establish a religion as absolutely true. Basically I need to be convinced that something is real before I believe in it, and invoking magical properties is not the way to do it. I need tangible, incontrovertible evidence to show that a god exists before I'll believe in it. Just showing me words in an old book is not going to do it.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
Posts: 326
Threads: 9
Joined: September 29, 2013
Reputation:
7
RE: standard of evidence
October 2, 2013 at 9:49 am
(October 2, 2013 at 9:41 am)LastPoet Wrote: Why?
Your analogy is completely off what I tried to convey. Nice attempt to dodge, but a god is an extraordinary thing, is it not?
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
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
Posts: 4940
Threads: 99
Joined: April 17, 2011
Reputation:
45
RE: standard of evidence
October 2, 2013 at 9:50 am
(October 2, 2013 at 9:13 am)Rational AKD Wrote: to a prince in a tropical climate who has never seen ice before, the very description of ice would to him seem extraordinary. does this mean he is justified not believing there is ice? of course not.
the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence claim is nothing more than a catchy phrase with no practical value.
The major difference is that it would be possible to show him some ice, since we all know that ice exists. For some reason it seems impossible for Christians to show nonbelievers their god. If someone was skeptical of ice existing, it would be possible to procure some just to show him. However, when it comes to gods, instead of procuring this god in reality special magical properties are always invoked to explain why nobody can see, feel, taste, smell, or detect the existence of this god in any way.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
Posts: 326
Threads: 9
Joined: September 29, 2013
Reputation:
7
RE: standard of evidence
October 2, 2013 at 9:56 am
(This post was last modified: October 2, 2013 at 10:02 am by Rational AKD.)
(October 2, 2013 at 9:46 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Like I said to Vinny on another thread, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That works well enough to send someone to prison for the rest of their life, so it should be good enough to establish a religion as absolutely true. Basically I need to be convinced that something is real before I believe in it, and invoking magical properties is not the way to do it. I need tangible, incontrovertible evidence to show that a god exists before I'll believe in it. Just showing me words in an old book is not going to do it.
you don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt for everything, so why would you for God? do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that reality is not an illusion? more importantly, do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that God doesn't exist? if not then why do you cherry pick the negating proposition while denying the proposition?
(October 2, 2013 at 9:50 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: The major difference is that it would be possible to show him some ice, since we all know that ice exists. For some reason it seems impossible for Christians to show nonbelievers their god. If someone was skeptical of ice existing, it would be possible to procure some just to show him. However, when it comes to gods, instead of procuring this god in reality special magical properties are always invoked to explain why nobody can see, feel, taste, smell, or detect the existence of this god in any way.
there is also no way to show someone a quark, but does that mean we shouldn't believe in them?
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
|
