Proof Doesn't Matter

[Neopergoss]

Example: my keyboard turns into cheese right now. So the point of this post is that your premise is false, BluePriest.

So if your keyboard turned into cheese, and that cheese spoke and said "I am the God of the Christians," im not saying you would worship the God of the Christians, but would you believe it existed?

Well I wouldn't believe it existed (at least not right away), but I would try my best to worship it. You don't mess around with that kind of power. I'd be really freaked out if such a powerful force claimed to be the god of the Christians. I could certainly be convinced it was that specific god, but it wouldn't be that easy.

...
TLDR:
BluePriest is defending "Extraordinary claims merely demand Extraordinary evidence not Impossible evidence. Requiring Impossible evidence for any claim is irrational."

I'm not sure I understand the concept of impossible evidence for God's existence. Surely nothing is impossible for God? Besides that, there's nothing all that extraordinary about a cheese keyboard. It's certainly possible for men to create such a keyboard without God's help. The transformation itself would be extraordinary, and asking to see this before believing seems perfectly reasonable.

[OldTrees]

...
TLDR:
BluePriest is defending "Extraordinary claims merely demand Extraordinary evidence not Impossible evidence. Requiring Impossible evidence for any claim is irrational."

I'm not sure I understand the concept of impossible evidence for God's existence. Surely nothing is impossible for God? Besides that, there's nothing all that extraordinary about a cheese keyboard. It's certainly possible for men to create such a keyboard without God's help.

Ex:
A god exists. John exists. That god tries to convince John that it exists without manipulation. John rejects all evidence that god presents as "possible hallucinations" or "yet to be explained phenomena". John, by rejecting all Possible evidence is requiring Impossible evidence before believing in that God's existence.

Based on your most recent response to BP, you probably do not fall in the same category as John.

(PS: On Earth spontaneous Plastic to Cheese transmutation is an extraordinary claim)

[BluePriest]

A god exists. John exists. That god tries to convince John that it exists without manipulation. John rejects all evidence that god presents as "possible hallucinations" or "yet to be explained phenomena". John, by rejecting all Possible evidence is requiring Impossible evidence before believing in that God's existence.

This is exactly what I am trying to say, can I add this to my OP so people wont get so confused?

Also, yes, it seems neo, you wouldnt fall into this category. There are people who would though.

[Neopergoss]

A god exists. John exists. That god tries to convince John that it exists without manipulation. John rejects all evidence that god presents as "possible hallucinations" or "yet to be explained phenomena". John, by rejecting all Possible evidence is requiring Impossible evidence before believing in that God's existence.

This is exactly what I am trying to say, can I add this to my OP so people wont get so confused?

Also, yes, it seems neo, you wouldnt fall into this category. There are people who would though.

I'm thinking that basically all weak atheists are open to God's existence in the same way that I am while strong atheists are not. The reasoning of strong atheists is that God is simply not possible -- that the definition of God contradicts itself. I will say that certain ones do, but that "God" is too amorphous a concept for me to be a strong atheist for all gods.

[Nepycros]

A god exists. John exists. That god tries to convince John that it exists without manipulation. John rejects all evidence that god presents as "possible hallucinations" or "yet to be explained phenomena". John, by rejecting all Possible evidence is requiring Impossible evidence before believing in that God's existence.

This is exactly what I am trying to say, can I add this to my OP so people wont get so confused?

Also, yes, it seems neo, you wouldnt fall into this category. There are people who would though.

I'm thinking that basically all weak atheists are open to God's existence in the same way that I am while strong atheists are not. The reasoning of strong atheists is that God is simply not possible -- that the definition of God contradicts itself. I will say that certain ones do, but that "God" is too amorphous a concept for me to be a strong atheist for all gods.

Would you fall under the class of Ignostic Atheist?

[OldTrees]

A god exists. John exists. That god tries to convince John that it exists without manipulation. John rejects all evidence that god presents as "possible hallucinations" or "yet to be explained phenomena". John, by rejecting all Possible evidence is requiring Impossible evidence before believing in that God's existence.

This is exactly what I am trying to say, can I add this to my OP so people wont get so confused?

Yes.

[Neopergoss]

A god exists. John exists. That god tries to convince John that it exists without manipulation. John rejects all evidence that god presents as "possible hallucinations" or "yet to be explained phenomena". John, by rejecting all Possible evidence is requiring Impossible evidence before believing in that God's existence.

This is exactly what I am trying to say, can I add this to my OP so people wont get so confused?

Also, yes, it seems neo, you wouldnt fall into this category. There are people who would though.

I'm thinking that basically all weak atheists are open to God's existence in the same way that I am while strong atheists are not. The reasoning of strong atheists is that God is simply not possible -- that the definition of God contradicts itself. I will say that certain ones do, but that "God" is too amorphous a concept for me to be a strong atheist for all gods.

Would you fall under the class of Ignostic Atheist?

Ignostic? No.

An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.

I have a clear enough conception about what is typically meant by "God" to at least assert weak atheism (also known as negative atheism). I'm an agnostic atheist, but not an ignostic one.

A negative atheist refers "to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are currently no rational grounds that support [its] existence.

Here's (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm) a useful link about strong atheism, weak atheism, and the burden of proof.

[OldTrees]

A negative atheist refers "to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are currently no rational grounds that support [its] existence.

Here's (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm) a useful link about strong atheism, weak atheism, and the burden of proof.

Do you believe that "If a deity existed there would necessarily exist rational grounds that would support its existence even if those grounds were unknown."?

[Neopergoss]

A negative atheist refers "to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are currently no rational grounds that support [its] existence.

Here's (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm) a useful link about strong atheism, weak atheism, and the burden of proof.

Do you believe that "If a deity existed there would necessarily exist rational grounds that would support its existence even if those grounds were unknown."?

I believe that there could exist rational grounds to support the existence of a diety but we either don't know what they are or they don't exist. I also believe there could exist rational grounds to support the existence of ghosts but for the same reason I don't believe in them either.

[OldTrees]

A negative atheist refers "to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are currently no rational grounds that support [its] existence.

Here's (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm) a useful link about strong atheism, weak atheism, and the burden of proof.

Do you believe that "If a deity existed there would necessarily exist rational grounds that would support its existence even if those grounds were unknown."?

I believe that there could exist rational grounds to support the existence of a diety but we either don't know what they are or they don't exist. I also believe there could exist rational grounds to support the existence of ghosts but for the same reason I don't believe in them either.

Understandable. If rational grounds would exist if a deity exists, then it is reasonable to require knowledge of that sufficient evidence before believing.

If the existence of a deity did not necessitate the existence of what you consider sufficient evidence, then wouldn't you possibly be requiring impossible evidence for a merely extraordinary claim?

[Neopergoss]

If the existence of a deity did not necessitate the existence of what you consider sufficient evidence, then wouldn't you possibly be requiring impossible evidence for a merely extraordinary claim?

No. If a god exists (ie: a being with unlimited power) then the kind of evidence I would need would not be at all impossible. The fact that I haven't received anything that even remotely seems like evidence for any god's existence leads me to conclude that if there is a god he doesn't want me to believe in him.

[OldTrees]

If the existence of a deity did not necessitate the existence of what you consider sufficient evidence, then wouldn't you possibly be requiring impossible evidence for a merely extraordinary claim?

No. If a god exists (ie: a being with unlimited power) then the kind of evidence I would need would not be at all impossible. The fact that I haven't received anything that even remotely seems like evidence for any god's existence leads me to conclude that if there is a god he doesn't want me to believe in him.

Ok.

So you do believe that if a being with unlimited power existed then there would necessarily exist* evidence that you would find sufficient.
*Though you might not be aware of the evidence.

Under that premise, including the crucial underlined word, requiring evidence prior to belief is reasonable.
You are also correct that while lack of evidence for the positive claim is not proof of the negative claim, it is evidence in favor of the negative claim in cases where the underlined word is present.