Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Sheldon]

Ok please contact me whenever you are ready to actually answer my question.

Hilarious, you never ever give an honest answer to mine, and I bullet pointed my answers to yours. You have also not addressed the dishonesty of you assigning yet another straw man claim to me.

Sheldon
The universe isn't fine tuned

leroy
A few post ago you agreed that it is

I certainly did not, and I challenge you to quote the post, and lets have a verbatim quote please, none of your dishonest editing and redactions.

 

[Sheldon]

Again just provide a method that would allow me to test if something is evidence or not

Why would you want me to think for you? Learn to do it yourself.

 

[Sheldon]

That definition doesnt help in determining if something is evidence or not

Of course it does, you haven't worked out yet that evidence can fail to support a position, wet feet might be evidence you're standing in a puddle, but on its own it's insufficient to draw a reliable conclusion, until you grasp this you're just chasing your tail.

Anyway I simply whant to know what you mean by evidence and why under your view the FT argument fails to qualify as evidence .

I have answered both of these expansively and carefully for you, I can only suggest you go back and read them.

Please contact me when you are ready to provide an answer.

I have already provided answers, more than once for what I consider evidence to mean, and it is in the dictionary. My refutation of what you provided as a FT arguments is in this thread.

So a God start would be to point to the thing thst represents most important failure so that we can have a conversation on that

I have no idea what that means, but I have already offered a refutation of the FT assumption. You didn't respond honestly to that, so I'm not going to repeat myself. when you're ready to honestly address what I said I will respond to it.

 

[Sheldon]

In my experience Internet atheist usually don't even have a "bar" they dont even know what would qualify as evidence .

That is untrue, as I have told you multiple times already, that my bar for belief is that sufficient objective evidence be demonstrated to support a claim. I am more than happy to conform to the common usage of those words, they're in any dictionary. You and Pure X seem to want me to prove your deity for you, just bizarre.

 

[Sheldon]

So, there is no much difference to say:
1. I think, there is no God (because there is no proof of God).
2. I do not believe, that there is God.

Of course there is, one is a claim, one is withholding belief from a claim. The former, like all claims, carries an epistemological burden of proof, the latter does not, to assert a claim is in any way valid until it is disproved or contrary evidence provided, is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

They sure know what doesn't, though.

Why does it bother you so much? One assumes you anticipated encountering different viewpoints in a general debate forum?

 

[Sheldon]

An analogy to this debate, is the science claim that life exists elsewhere in the universe.

That's not a scientific claim, it looks like a straw man you've created. However please provide a citation to some peer reviewed research, perhaps from a worthy scientific publication that supports your assertion, as I am very dubious about your claim.

 

[Sheldon]

The Bible claim that life on earth is unique is supported by all the hard data,

It is? Could you offer a citation for that data as well then please, as I think you are making up false claims and straw men fallacies.

 

[Sheldon]

In terms of the proof for God, a classic attribute of God is omnipresence. God is everywhere at the same time. Theoretically, if space-time dissociated into separated time and separated space; at the speed of light, both time and space could act independently of each other. In this case, one could move in space without the constraint of time. Conceptually, one could be anywhere and everywhere in zero time, thereby becoming omnipresent.

All I see are a string assumptions and hypotheticals sorry. A classic attribute of Harry Potter is he's a wizard, this doesn't make wizardry possible.

 

[leroy]

Of course it does, you haven't worked out yet that evidence can fail to support a position, wet feet might be evidence your standing in a puddle, but on its own it's insufficient to draw a reliable conclusion, until you grasp this you're just chasing your tail.



I have answered both of these expansively and carefully for you, I can only suggest you go back and read them.



I have already provided answers, more than once for what I consider evidence to mean, and it is in the dictionary. My refutation of what you provided as a FT arguments is in this thread.



I have no idea what that means, but I have already offered a refutation of the FT assumption. You didn't respond honestly to that, so I'm not going to repeat myself. when you're ready to honestly address what I said I will respond to it.

Again

All I want you is to provide a definition of evidence and explain why the FT arguments fails to be evidence.

Please contact me whenever you are ready.

 

[Sheldon]

I haven't seen that claim from science. I have seen the speculation that the universe is likely teeming with life, but anybody claiming that that life is there before finding it should be disbelieved and the claim rejected.

It struck me as a rather blatant straw man as well.

 

[Sheldon]

Compelling evidence is whatever makes something more likely to be true than false

Conclusive evidence is anything that proves beyond reasonable doubt that something is true.

Compelling
adjective
Not able to be resisted; overwhelming.

Conclusive
adjective

1. (of evidence or argument) having or likely to have the effect of proving a case; decisive.

They're not mutually exclusive.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Some context for your information

Sheldon: there is no evidence for God just claims and assertions.

LEROY: what do you mean by evidence/ what would accept as evidence?

Leroy: (sarcastically) there is no evidence that stegosaurus ever existed all we have are claims and assertions.

Sheldon: no I wont explain what I mean by evidence (+some exuseses here and there)

Then you jumped to this conversation...

Then you provided a source that explains the concept of evidence

Then I pointed out that according to your source the concept of evidence is not universal (people mean different things according to the context)

Which shows that my original request is valid, asking what do you mean by evidence is a valid requirement.

Then you falsely accused me for straws and redherrings

My theory is that you jumped to this conversation without understanding the context (which is ok forums tebd to be chaotic)


So with this context in mind , do you have anything to comment on?

Are you not aware that you can go to a museum and see the fossilized remains of a stegosaurus? You don't have to rely on anyone's say-so.

 

[Sheldon]

So in this sense the new testament would count as evidence for the resurrection / in other words the resurrection claim would have been less likely to be true if those documents didn’t exist.

At his point do you agree?

Do you think Harry Potter books makes wizardry more likely to be true? You know that not one word of the NT is even a contemporary account don't you, and that the authors of the gospels are made up, the authorship is unknown?

 

[Sheldon]

Again All I want you is to provide a definition of evidence and explain why the FT arguments fails to be evidence.

I already have, you just ignored it, if you haven't the integrity to honestly address what I posted, why would I bother typing it all out again.

<LINK>

"First, there is an underlying assumption in the FTA to the effect that the ‘constants’ of Nature as well as the initial conditions of the Universe (to both of which the emergence of life is allegedly exquisitely sensitive) are similarly variable. This may or may not be the case; the present state of science is not advanced enough to decide between chance and necessity concerning the laws of nature and the beginning of the Universe"

If you read on from there, it actually addresses and critiques the theistic FT argument, which is of course a distinct or separate argument from the scientific one, since the former is a biased assumption, as I said. It isn't even philosophically sound either, as the vast majority of the universe is entirely hostile to life.

Evidence
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

 

[Sheldon]

Are you not aware that you can go to a museum and see the fossilized remains of a stegosaurus? You don't have to rely on anyone's say-so.

I actually linked the Natural History Museum's exhibit, with an online explanation of the exhibit, and photographs, he's just being deliberately disingenuous.

 

[leroy]

Yes, I mostly agree. I consider your definition for compelling evidence the same as your definition of evidence. For me, compelling evidence raises the likelihood to the level of believability.

I said those same things in my post, although I distinguished between evidence and evidence of. Evidence of resurrection is anything evident that makes resurrection more likely. I provided a long list of interpretations of the biblical testimony that a resurrection had occurred, one being what you believe: "They're evidence that somebody said those things. That is either because a resurrection and was witnessed and reported second or third hand to the Gospel writers, "

But I also believe that the likelihood of a resurrection occurring, although slightly increased because of the report, is still not sufficiently likely to believe that it happened. That is why I would call the evidence of the Gospel testimony evidence of a resurrection, but so weak as to not be considered compelling or conclusive evidence.

Suppose I predicted that the second number picked in the lottery tonight would be 19. The first number is 27. That is evidence that the second number won't be 19. My prediction just became a little more likely with that evidence. If there are 60 balls in the hopper, the chances of me being right just went up from 1/60 (0.01666666666) to 1/59 (0.01694915254). Do you believe me yet? Probably not.

I see the scriptural evidence for resurrection the same way. Yes, that somebody heard second or third hand that a resurrection occurred makes the likelihood of that having occurred very slightly higher, but not enough to support belief.

Also, when others say that there's no evidence for resurrection, I think it should be understood that way - there is insufficient evidence for belief. I've tried to avoid using the phrase "no evidence" for this reason, substituting "insufficient evidence."

There's evidence for intelligent design. It's the same evidence as supports naturalistic science - reality. It's just insufficient evidence to believe that nature was designed. It's merely logically possible. And the rigorously logical position is that each is a candidate hypothesis, although they can be ranked according to likelihood, and naturalistic hypotheses are preferred for being more parsimonious: they don't require an intelligent designer.

But falsify evolution, and what's left to account for all of the evidence for naturalistic evolution of matter into galaxies of solar systems containing sentient life but a deceptive intelligent designer explanation? Once again, that possibility is orders of magnitude less likely than the present one, and is not considered seriously by any critical thinker, but cannot be dropped from the list of candidate hypotheses without making a non sequitur error - shortening the list by guessing.

To recap, evidence can support an idea without making the idea believable or likely, and yes, you have testimonial evidence of a resurrection, but that is insufficient to justify belief that one occurred.

By the way, anything that makes the likelihood of one resurrection increase makes the likelihood of two resurrections increase. If Jesus was actually resurrected, it is slightly more likely that he was not the only one.

We have multiple independent testimonies for the resurrection (+ an empty tomb) this includes testimonies form skeptics, non believers, and even groups of people.

This makes “hallucinations” an unlikely and insufficient explanation. …..Unlikely because it´s unlikely (nearly impossible) for multiple people to have the same hallucination at the same time. And insufficient because hallucinations would not explain the empty tomb nor the belief in the resurrection.

Lies are also unlikely , early Christians where persecuted and died in the name of the resurrection, (this means that they were not trying to fool anyone, they honestly believed in the resurrection) besides this wouldn’t explain the empty tomb ether.

As for the resurrection well if God exist then miracles and resurrection would not be “very unlikely”

Even if we assume agnosticism (perhaps God exist perhaps not 50% probability) the resurrection seems to be the best explanation.

So it seems to me that resurrections are very unlikely (less likely than hallucinations or lies)only if the existence of God is unlikely.

The point that I am making is that even if you are an agnostic, the resurrection is the best explanation.

And if something is the “best explanation” then it qualifies as “compelling evidence”

Please let me know your thought on this.


…

As an analogy if I tell you that an Alien kidnaped my neighbor you will probably conclude that I am crazy or lying.

But if there are multiple testimonies claiming the same thing, my neighbor is truly missing, and if I and other witnesses are being persecuted by religious groups for making “alien claims” …. Then you would probably consider the possibility that my neighbor was truly kidnapped by an alien.

The resurrection claims would be analogous to that

 

[Trailblazer]

1. Most of humankind is perfectly sure, there is God. They even feel God and talk to God.
2. Most of humankind is not crazy.
This is very strong evidence.

It is not really evidence but it is a strong indication that there is a God because all these people do not believe in God based upon no evidence. I mean they did not just up and say "gee I think I will believe in God." There is a reason that most people believe in God and it is because there is evidence for God that comes through religions.

 

[Trailblazer]

2. Most of humankind is not crazy.

as atheists would have us think.
But it is illogical that 93% of people in the world who believe in God are all crazy, because if they were the world could not function at all.

 

[Trailblazer]

No that is a fallacy.

Yes, it is the fallacy of ad populum to say that God exists is true because many or most people believe that God exists. God either exists or not and it has nothing to do with what people believe or disbelieve.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

However, a logical person would have to ask why most people in the world would believe in a nonexistent thing. To say that all these believers are all crazy is not a reasoned response. There has to be a reason why so many people believe in God and I think it is because there is evidence for God.