Default position

[Trailblazer]

Who decides what is good evidence?

Whoever is evaluating the evidence.
The evidence is objective but whether it is good enough or not is subjective.

No, I do not deny any evidence. I think the evidence presented is insufficient for belief for many logical reasons.

I think the evidence presented is sufficient for belief for many logical reasons.
What are the logical reasons why you consider the evidence insufficient?

Not my point. At one time most people believed the earth was flat based on the evidence they had. Were they right?

I don't see how that is relevant to my point that 93% of people believe in God because there is evidence that God exists.
All those people did not just decide that believing in God was a good idea absent any evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'd prefer some independent validator personally - given that so many are self-serving. Such that why would I or anyone believe any individual in such things other than being as personal preference?

Logically speaking, who would know better what the evidence is for the prophet than the prophet?
Given he is making the claim, he is the one who is obligated to provide the evidence to back up his claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

Great. So you have to first believe somebody is a prophet before you get the criteria, from said prophet, to determine who is a prophet or not. Do you not see a tiny bit of a potential problem with that?

NO, you do not believe that a man is a prophet before you determine if he fulfills the criteria.
Who else are you going to get the criteria from, Santa Claus?
If the prophet is making the claim then he is the one who is obligated to provide the evidence to back up his claim....
If you don't like what he offered as evidence then you can look for other evidence.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Logically speaking, who would know better what the evidence is for the prophet than the prophet?
Given he is making the claim, he is the one who is obligated to provide the evidence to back up his claim.

A bit off though if the prophet provided the logic too. How can we humans determine such things - apart from what appeals to us? It just doesn't make sense to accept anything coming through an individual human being, even if such person claims to be a or the Prophet.

 

[Trailblazer]

Where's the evidence? Bold claims are not evidence. Character is not evidence. "Fulfilled prophecy" give me a break, seriously?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This isn't even run of the mill, everyday evidence.

Please bear in mind that what is considered extraordinary is highly subjective.
What would constitute extraordinary evidence for you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Please bear in mind that what is considered extraordinary is highly subjective.
What would constitute extraordinary evidence for you?

Well, we know that already, but your standard is in the end this: You are rational (that is a Greek pagan philosophical idea btw) and everybody else who do it differently are not rational. The problem is that this standard works in both directions. so it will never work other than subjectively for all humans with subjective difference: You are rational or not subjectively depending on point of view.
But there is another standard - what can we try to agree on. But as long as you are rational and I am not and that is a fact, we will fight. Sorry, Trailblazer, but that is how it is.

 

[Trailblazer]

A bit off though if the prophet provided the logic too. How can we humans determine such things - apart from what appeals to us? It just doesn't make sense to accept anything coming through an individual human being, even if such person claims to be a or the Prophet.

The prophet did not provide the logic, I did.
You are correct, the determination is subjective, so it is what we determine is true.

It makes sense that a revelation from God would come through an individual human being since there is no other way for human beings to get such a revelation from God.

 

[Stevicus]

It seems to me that an atheist's default position is, in fact, atheism.

Absent of proof for a god, they don't believe in one.

I have no proof of god, but I think that is because I haven't diligently searched long enough yet. I am sort of young. For me, absent of proof, I believe in a higher power. It would have to be proven to me that God does not exist like the gaps in knowledge would have to be eradicated I think.

Perhaps, after some years of searching, I will become an athesist if I find no experiences which reinforce my faith. But I've already have had experiences which reinforce my faith, so I just have to see if living a religious life will lead to more of those.

So my default position is one of magical thinking. Does that make sense?

I grew up having certain beliefs instilled in me, such as the belief in God or a "higher power." When I was a kid, it was just imposed upon me as fact, and it wasn't until years later that I even thought of questioning it. I would not have believed in any "god" if someone didn't tell me about it, but because everyone around me believed it to be true, it just seemed like the normal and natural thing to do.

Ironically, I learned to reject religion by following the precept that "you will know them by their fruit."

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, we know that already, but your standard is in the end this: You are rational (that is a Greek pagan philosophical idea btw) and everybody else who do it differently are not rational. The problem is that this standard works in both directions. so it will never work other than subjectively for all humans with subjective difference: You are rational or not subjectively depending on point of view.
But there is another standard - what can we try to agree on. But as long as you are rational and I am not and that is a fact, we will fight. Sorry, Trailblazer, but that is how it is.

When did I ever say I am rational and everybody else who thinks differently is not rational? I never said that.
It is the atheists who are always saying I am not rational, which is implying that they are rational.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When did I ever say I am rational and everybody else who thinks differently is not rational? I never said that.
It is the atheists who are always saying I am not rational, which is implying that they are rational.

You said in a post to the following effect. Your beliefs are rational and others are not.

 

[ratiocinator]

NO, you do not believe that a man is a prophet before you determine if he fulfills the criteria.

Why should you accept criteria from somebody unless you think they are in a position to know, i.e. that you already regard them as a prophet?

Who else are you going to get the criteria from, Santa Claus?

These are your claims, not mine, hence this is your problem.

If the prophet is making the claim then he is the one who is obligated to provide the evidence to back up his claim....

So where is any of this evidence?

Please bear in mind that what is considered extraordinary is highly subjective.

To an extent but it's basically a Bayesian calculation. You need to drastically reduce the probability that there is any other explanation at all for the facts you present, other than your hypothesis. This is because an extraordinary claim has a very low prior probability (that's what makes it extraordinary). The problem is trying to make sure false positives don't become far more likely than a true positive.

What would constitute extraordinary evidence for you?

I don't think any sort of normal human behaviour is going to cut it. Any 'fulfilled prophecies' would have to be very, very specific, and totally immune to somebody deliberately behaving in a way that would 'fulfil' them. We'd also need several. One could be coincidence, even if specific. You've got to make the false positive probability vanishingly small.

The waffle given in your other post isn't even of the right order of magnitude.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@Trailblazer
Found it.

I do not think that belief in God is magical thinking....
It makes no sense that the 93% of people who believe in God are all into magical thinking.
It seems to me that those believers are into rational thinking and the atheists are the ones who cannot think rationally since they deny all the evidence for God that everyone else sees.

There you go.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The prophet did not provide the logic, I did.
You are correct, the determination is subjective, so it is what we determine is true.

It makes sense that a revelation from God would come through an individual human being since there is no other way for human beings to get such a revelation from God.

Well I wouldn't know about that, but I suspect that any omniscient being could have provided some other method of stamping this knowledge in our environment so as this to be recognised as such and to be unambiguous. Given that what has occurred on Earth has been conflict and warring between the various faiths that have emerged over the last several thousand years, and such being more likely to have come from human involvement it seems to many of us. And all the arguments as to sifting out people who recognise any prophets and those who don't just seems as far fetched too.

 

[Trailblazer]

You said in a post to the following effect. Your beliefs are rational and others are not.

Please show me where I said that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have

Please show me where I said that.

You said in post #2 and I quoted you in post #72.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why should you accept criteria from somebody unless you think they are in a position to know, i.e. that you already regard them as a prophet?

Why would you even bother looking at someone at all unless he made a claim to be a prophet?
Nobody should accept that a man is a Prophet unless he meets the criteria that he presented as criteria for that determination.

These are your claims, not mine, hence this is your problem.

They are not my claims since I have nothing to claim because I am not a Prophet of God.

So where is any of this evidence?

I already posted you the post that had the claims and the evidence.

To an extent but it's basically a Bayesian calculation. You need to drastically reduce the probability that there is any other explanation at all for the facts you present, other than your hypothesis. This is because an extraordinary claim has a very low prior probability (that's what makes it extraordinary). The problem is trying to make sure false positives don't become far more likely than a true positive.

Fair enough. What if I could present evidence that drastically reduces the probability that there is any other explanation at all for what I believe?

I don't think any sort of normal human behaviour is going to cut it.

So you would want superhuman behavior such as miracles? Baha'u'llah performed miracles, but miracles are only proof to those people who actually witnessed them.

Any 'fulfilled prophecies' would have to be very, very specific, and totally immune to somebody deliberately behaving in a way that would 'fulfil' them. We'd also need several. One could be coincidence, even if specific. You've got to make the false positive probability vanishingly small.

Fair enough, but unless you believe that Bible was inspired by God why would you believe the Bible prophecies are predictors of a Prophet?
That's a given. The prophecy would have to be something the Prophet could not intentionally fulfill in order to make a false claim.
There are many specific prophecies that are totally immune to somebody deliberately behaving in a way that would 'fulfil' them.

The waffle given in your other post isn't even of the right order of magnitude.

You have to look inside the waffle to see what's in there.

 

[Trailblazer]

You said in a post to the following effect. Your beliefs are rational and others are not.

That is not what I said.
I said: It makes no sense that the 93% of people who believe in God are all into magical thinking.
It seems to me that those believers are into rational thinking and the atheists are the ones who cannot think rationally since they deny all the evidence for God that everyone else sees. #2

 

[an anarchist]

What if I could present evidence that drastically reduces the probability that there is any other explanation at all for what I believe?

Do it... I dare ya!

 

[Trailblazer]

@Trailblazer
Found it.

There you go.

I said It seems to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well I wouldn't know about that, but I suspect that any omniscient being could have provided some other method of stamping this knowledge in our environment so as this to be recognised as such and to be unambiguous.

So what if He could make His existence unambiguous? Has it ever occurred to you that He chooses not to do so for His own reasons?

Given that what has occurred on Earth has been conflict and warring between the various faiths that have emerged over the last several thousand years, and such being more likely to have come from human involvement it seems to many of us. And all the arguments as to sifting out people who recognise any prophets and those who don't just seems as far fetched too.

How do you think God could resolve these conflicts, given humans have free will to choose what to believe?