What is evidence, and to what extent?

[ChristianT]

Intro- not all claims require the same amounts of evidence.

"4+4=8." Why? Setup a demonstration of four objects merging with four other objects, and count the total it will be eight.

So lets say someone claims that God exists. What types of evidence would be accepted as valid, and how much (of each kind) would be required?

Many atheists claim that only a "sufficient" or "acceptable" amount or type of evidence is required. Please describe what sufficient and acceptable is, or whether an objective standard is possible for such descriptors.

 

[quatona]

Intro- not all claims require the same amounts of evidence.

Agreed.



So lets say someone claims that God exists. What types of evidence would be accepted as valid, and how much (of each kind) would be required? [/quote]
Yes, that´s the question to the guy making the claim: What type of evidence made him make this claim, and how much of it did it require him to state God´s existence as a fact.
The evidence that theists accept as sufficient is often remarkably weak, compared to the standards of evidence they apply when it comes to much simpler claims; on top, they would never accept the same low amount of evidence as sufficient when it is presented for a deity they do not believe in.

Many atheists claim that only a "sufficient" or "acceptable" amount or type of evidence is required. Please describe what sufficient and acceptable is, or whether an objective standard is possible for such descriptors.

Depends entirely on what the guy means when saying "God". Thus, the very first question when someone claims "God exists." should always be: What do you mean - "God"?

Personally, I have no doubt that a God of the abrahmic sort (omni-all personal creator entity) would have no problems giving each individual the amount and sort of evidence they require to believe in his existence - if only he wished to. Then again, these theologies posit that belief in their Gods´ existence requires faith. Thus, evidence is actually not to be expected.

 

[Loudmouth]

So lets say someone claims that God exists. What types of evidence would be accepted as valid, and how much (of each kind) would be required?

The same kind of evidence that you would need to accept the existence of any other person, force, or object. What evidence would convince you that Bigfoot exists, atoms exist, or that gravity exists?

Many atheists claim that only a "sufficient" or "acceptable" amount or type of evidence is required. Please describe what sufficient and acceptable is, or whether an objective standard is possible for such descriptors.

Objective evidence will do just fine.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Intro- not all claims require the same amounts of evidence.

"4+4=8." Why? Setup a demonstration of four objects merging with four other objects, and count the total it will be eight.

So lets say someone claims that God exists. What types of evidence would be accepted as valid, and how much (of each kind) would be required?

Many atheists claim that only a "sufficient" or "acceptable" amount or type of evidence is required. Please describe what sufficient and acceptable is, or whether an objective standard is possible for such descriptors.

PEARL - Physical Evidence & Reasoned Logic

Any amount of independently verifiable objective evidence would be just fine.

 

[AlexBP]

The same kind of evidence that you would need to accept the existence of any other person, force, or object. What evidence would convince you that Bigfoot exists, atoms exist, or that gravity exists?

But that quite clearly fails to answer the question that ChristianT is asking. What constitutes evidence varies from case to case. In the case of Bigfoot, I'd believe it exists if someone captures a live specimen. In the case of atoms or gravity, I believe what the relevant textbooks say, since I see no good reason to doubt them.

Neither of those is particularly close to the question of whether God exists. A more relevant example would be this. My fiance has a cousin named Joe. I've never met him, yet I believe he exists because my fiance says so and I've no reason to doubt what she says. I'm sure everyone else can name a person whose existence they accept based on similar criteria. Yet skeptics won't accept the existence of God even though the number of people who have met God greatly exceeds the number who have met cousin Joe. So it is actually the skeptics who apply a very different standard to claims of God than to claims made of other people.

 

[Loudmouth]

My fiance has a cousin named Joe. I've never met him, yet I believe he exists because my fiance says so and I've no reason to doubt what she says. I'm sure everyone else can name a person whose existence they accept based on similar criteria.

We already know that humans exist. Not so with deities. A better analogy would be if your fiance said that she had an invisible dragon in her garage . . .

The Dragon In My Garage

Yet skeptics won't accept the existence of God even though the number of people who have met God greatly exceeds the number who have met cousin Joe. So it is actually the skeptics who apply a very different standard to claims of God than to claims made of other people.

We do have reason to be skeptical of God claims. Everytime we ask for evidence for God we are given nothing but more faith based claims.

 

[yasic]

Rather than go into full details about what would or would not constitute proof, I will give one example of sufficient proof for me:

First God would need to appear to me in a vision (not in person) - such as a dream, or during meditation - in a very clear and precise manner such that I may identify him.

Then:

"Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side" in the presence of others that I know who can collaborate that this happened after the fact (so as I can be sure I was not hallucinating)

If God does this, then I shall believe.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

We already know that humans exist. Not so with deities. A better analogy would be if your fiance said that she had an invisible dragon in her garage . . .

The Dragon In My Garage



We do have reason to be skeptical of God claims. Everytime we ask for evidence for God we are given nothing but more faith based claims.

"Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking."

The main flaw in Mr.Sagan's analogy. There have been millions of atheists converted to theism. CS Lewis is one the more famous ones that comes to mind.

There have been many "signs" while a skeptic is looking and, as Mr.Sagan noted, those skeptics rightfully became believers, just as he said he would if it happened to him.

 

[yasic]

"Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking."

The main flaw in Mr.Sagan's analogy. There have been millions of atheists converted to theism. CS Lewis is one the more famous ones that comes to mind.

There have been many "signs" while a skeptic is looking and, as Mr.Sagan noted, those skeptics rightfully became believers, just as he said he would if it happened to him.

But we likewise have just as many skeptics turning towards Allah, and Vishnu, and the earth mother, and a number of other deities. Since not all of these are true (in fact they are quite mutually exclusive) then we know it is quite normal for humans to become convinced in false gods.

 

[Loudmouth]

The main flaw in Mr.Sagan's analogy. There have been millions of atheists converted to theism.

I guess you didn't read it too closely?

"Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive . . . Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion."

CS Lewis is one the more famous ones that comes to mind.

I used to be a believer, and now I am an atheist. Does this convince you that theism is false?

There have been many "signs" while a skeptic is looking and, as Mr.Sagan noted, those skeptics rightfully became believers, just as he said he would if it happened to him.

The story says that no such evidence was ever witnessed by the skeptics.

 

[Tiberius]

So lets say someone claims that God exists. What types of evidence would be accepted as valid, and how much (of each kind) would be required?

My signature contains an example of a passage which, if found in a holy text that is several thousand years old, I would consider strong evidence for the existence of some advanced source of knowledge, such as a God.

Many atheists claim that only a "sufficient" or "acceptable" amount or type of evidence is required. Please describe what sufficient and acceptable is, or whether an objective standard is possible for such descriptors.

I can't say for sure what evidence would convince me that there is a god. But if there is a god, I'm sure he'd know and would be able to provide it.

 

[ChristianT]

My signature contains an example of a passage which, if found in a holy text that is several thousand years old, I would consider strong evidence for the existence of some advanced source of knowledge, such as a God.

I can't say for sure what evidence would convince me that there is a god. But if there is a god, I'm sure he'd know and would be able to provide it.

Lol that's like describing the components in a flux capacitor: we don't know it yet but we can try to comprehend it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yet skeptics won't accept the existence of God even though the number of people who have met God greatly exceeds the number who have met cousin Joe.

Probably because for the case of God, some people who've "met" him say his name is Joe, others claim that saying his name is a horrible offense, other people claim he's actually a woman, others say that Joe is just a metaphor for something else with no literal existence, and even more others say that there are a near infinite amount of Joes out there, or that there's a bit of Joe in all of us so there's no need to worry about meeting him in a literal sense, or that Joe built a house but left it a long time ago and isn't very social.

What should someone do in this case? You can't beleive all of the claims since they contradict each other. Pick some at random? Or wait for more information before making a decision?

So it is actually the skeptics who apply a very different standard to claims of God than to claims made of other people.

Yep, since "meeting" a god appears fundamentally different than meeting a person, despite the fact that one can poetically use the same term in describing the situation.

 

[KCfromNC]

Lol that's like describing the components in a flux capacitor: we don't know it yet but we can try to comprehend it.

I'd think the onus would be on believers to be able to explain what it is they are believing in when they say the believe. And as part of this, they should be able to explain what potential evidence there would be for and against their god. A believer blaming non-believers for not finding that believer's god is only fair if the believer can tell us what we should be looking for.

But all I've seen here is people blaming non-believers for not knowing what sort of evidence there is for the believers' god(s). Sounds like even believers don't have good evidence for their god - you can hardly blame the non-believers if they don't either.

 

[AlexBP]

We already know that humans exist. Not so with deities.

I don't see your point. I did not draw any analogy between the question of whether God exists and whether humanity exists. I drew an analogy between the question of whether God exists and whether cousin Joe exists. Plainly the question of whether humanity exists is very different than the question of whether cousin Joe exists. It's entirely possible that humanity exists but cousin Joe does not. Cousin Joe is entirely unique; the existence of other human beings tells us nothing about him.

 

[AlexBP]

Probably because for the case of God, some people who've "met" him say his name is Joe, others claim that saying his name is a horrible offense, other people claim he's actually a woman, others say that Joe is just a metaphor for something else with no literal existence, and even more others say that there are a near infinite amount of Joes out there, or that there's a bit of Joe in all of us so there's no need to worry about meeting him in a literal sense, or that Joe built a house but left it a long time ago and isn't very social.

What should someone do in this case? You can't beleive all of the claims since they contradict each other. Pick some at random? Or wait for more information before making a decision?

Consider the case of Barack Obama. Some people say he was born in Hawaii, others claim that he was born in Kenya, others people claim that he was born in Indonesia, others say that he's done wonderful things to improve our economy, others say that he's done horrible things which have harmed our economy, others say that he's a Muslim, others say that he's killed countless innocent Muslims with drone strikes, and so forth. What should someone do in this case? You can't believe all the claims about Barack Obama since they contradict each other. Pick some at random? Or wait for more information before making a decision?

 

[Tiberius]

Lol that's like describing the components in a flux capacitor: we don't know it yet but we can try to comprehend it.

Says who? We don't need to understand it, all we need to do is make sure it actually allows us to travel through time.

 

[ChristianT]

Says who? We don't need to understand it, all we need to do is make sure it actually allows us to travel through time.

So do you just shove it into the car and hope it travels time? Or do you try to learn how the mechanisms involved work?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't see your point.

Who would you be more skeptical of? Someone who claims to own a dog, or someone who claims to own a Sasquatch?

I did not draw any analogy between the question of whether God exists and I drew an analogy between the question of whether God exists and whether cousin Joe exists.

You drew the analogy between whether a deity exists or if a human exists. Since we already have evidence that humans exist . . .

Do I really have to spell this out? I have cousins. I have evidence that cousins exist. If someone else claims to have a cousin it isn't exactly a ludicrous claim since I know that cousins and humans exist. If they claimed to have a cousin who is a purple Leprechaun, then I become highly skeptical.

Do you understand the difference or not? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's how it works.

 

[Tiberius]

So do you just shove it into the car and hope it travels time? Or do you try to learn how the mechanisms involved work?

I dunno, what did Marty do?