Frequently, looking at the birds and the trees, and other life forms out the window, are cited as evidence for a god. "The evidence is all around you!".

Not many people are aware that such a thing as the standards of evidence exists. Some attributes make a piece of evidence more valuable than another piece.

Which is better evidence that a tornado occurred?

  • A snickers bar with a face chiseled into it.
  • A path of destruction with objects strewn randomly left and right.

Obviously, the latter is the better evidence - but, why? When one starts analyzing what makes some evidence better than others, one would soon develop a set of rules, or a set of standards, of what makes for good evidence, or bad.

• As a general rule of thumb, if the evidence one is offering equally (if not more) implicates the opposing viewpoint, it is not good evidence.

Pointing at the birds and the trees implicates, even more so, that nature happens, and operates on its own. It is a direct demonstration of a system that has no supernatural engine driving it. This is exclusive with the claim that it does. We've never observed any supernatural phenomenon spontaneously creating new forms of life. We only observe nature chugging along, as nature usually does.

• If one is responsible for hiring good, hard-working and experienced people into job openings for a company, one typically has a set of standards established that are consistently demonstrably effective at weeding out bad candidates and finding the good ones. If a person applies for a job, and instead of supplying previous employers as his/her references, he/she instead provides references to his/her imaginary friends, and instead of a resume indicating experience, he/she has a resume that talks about hallucinations he/she had about doing work, that candidate would be promptly dismissed, and rightly so.

• Often, theists will attempt to "logic God into existence", without any attempt to confirm the argument. An example is, "God is love. Love exists, therefore, God exists." Logic is used without any confirming evidence, often on faulty or undemonstrative premises, to argue that a God has to exist. Since logic can only be a guide for investigation in reality (you can only absolutely prove things within math), all one has done is made an argument without any verification.

• The vast majority of theistic arguments fail for one reason or another, to the point that it is rare to hear an argument that does not use at least one logical fallacy.

That is why most "evidence" provided by theists gets rejected; because the quality is too poor, and does not adhere to basic standards of evidence.

Edited 18 times - Last Modified Jul 08, 2011