The latter. Until more information comes in, the default position is to not accept any of the claims at face value.
This is the atheist position on god. Thanks for demonstrating my point.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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 said:I dunno, what did Marty do?
Your approach raises obvious questions.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.
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.
So do you actually refuse to accept any claim about the existence of Barack Obama, or do you believe that more information has come in? If so, how do you sort out what you'll accept as information, since certainly all the various sides claim to have information backing up what they say?The latter. Until more information comes in, the default position is to not accept any of the claims at face value.
I´m not understanding the relevance of your comparison.So do you actually refuse to accept any claim about the existence of Barack Obama, or do you believe that more information has come in? If so, how do you sort out what you'll accept as information, since certainly all the various sides claim to have information backing up what they say?
Use an already built machine which doc created.
Tiberius said:Exactly. And just as Marty didn't need to know how to build a flux capacitor in order to travel through time, I don't need to know what evidence would convince me, because I'm not the one providing it. As long as God knows, that's the important thing. All that is required is that I be convinced by it, just as Marty doesn't need to know how to build a flux capacitor.
So do you actually refuse to accept any claim about the existence of Barack Obama, or do you believe that more information has come in?
If so, how do you sort out what you'll accept as information, since certainly all the various sides claim to have information backing up what they say?
Your approach raises obvious questions.
First, how do you set your categories?
You divide leprechauns and humans into separate categories and then claim that it's reasonable to believe in things in the human category but not the Leprechaun category, but on what basis?
Why wouldn't it be equally reasonable to put both humans and Leprechauns in the category of "beings" and then say that it's reasonable to believe claims about beings since we know beings exist?
Second, do you regard it as "a ludicrous claim" whenever someone claims that something exists, of which you don't have evidence that other things in the same category exist? Take, for instance, the Tunguska Event or the Bloop. These things existed only once; is it therefore ludicrous to claim that they existed at all?
I don't think that evidence plays all that big a role. Either way.
ChristianT said: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.
variant said:That's the first part of the problem.
Writings about Gods didn't come about through study of the universe in an evidence based way.
First you have to define God in a falsifiable way. What is God. How does act, react and operate, and why. What observations should we expect if God exists. What observations we should expect if God doesn't exist. And, how can these be properly tested for validity and differentiated.
Without that, you can't begin approach this idea this way.
Most of the problem of talking about evidence for God with a theist is that they don't understand what the rules are when you introduce a subject/theory for which you wish to present evidence.
The problem here is not that the non-believer won't accept any evidence; the problem is that it is up to the person making the evidence based claim to assert their poison in a non-assailable objective way.
It's up to you to present your hypothesis and defend it.
I await your detailed reply eagerly.
Thank you. I shall analyze my poison (position?) thusly.
Lol my point was that (keeping in mind the analogy, the ancient writers of the bible being Marty), they couldn't be expected to know how doc made the car, and neither do they try to explain that. They merely tell us why the car was made, and in some cases, how to use it.
But the thing is, if Doc was telling Marty about the car, he could include descriptions of the underlying physics that allow the car to travel through time. Marty may not understand it, but he could certainly write it down.
And yet the people who lived 2000 years ago do nothing like this. If they had included a passage in the Bible that included information they could not possibly know (such as the bit in my signature), then I would indeed consider it evidence that they had access to a knowledge beyond what they could have had. But they never give any indication of this.
I think the key point in the "back to the future" analogy was that it's fiction.
If it contained points that weren't explained because they were fictional plot devices, well, thats just how fiction is.
The chief pattern is I see is you repeating "evidence, evidence, evidence" without actually dealing with the question. Let me explain again what the question is. You've made the argument that it reasonable to believe in something, such as my fiance's cousin Joe, because he's in the category of humans and there's evidence that humans exist. At the same time you won't believe in a purple leprechaun because it's in the category of leprechauns and there's no evidence that leprechauns exist. However, it's obvious that this argument depends on the categories that you choose. If you instead chose to group humans and leprechauns together under the category of beings, then both would be in a category for which there is evidence. If you chose different categories, you'd conclude that evidence for different things existed. So your concept of evidence is defined using a priori categories.Starting to see a pattern here?
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.
Suppose that for the sake of argument, we entertain the possibility that there exists an entity for which no human being can successfully define exactly how it acts, reacts, and operates. Would we then have to abandon any attempt to discuss such an entity under the paradigm of evidence, or would we then consider different understandings of the idea of evidence?First you have to define God in a falsifiable way. What is God. How does it act, react and operate, and why. What observations should we expect if God exists. What observations we should expect if God doesn't exist. And, how can these be properly tested for validity and differentiated.
Without that, you can't begin approach this idea this way.
Suppose that for the sake of argument, we entertain the possibility that there exists an entity for which no human being can successfully define exactly how it acts, reacts, and operates.
Would we then have to abandon any attempt to discuss such an entity under the paradigm of evidence, or would we then consider different understandings of the idea of evidence?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?