Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Burden of proof

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 2:17:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Makers of supernatural claims have an inescapable burden of proof.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 2:30:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 2:26:50 PM, stubs wrote:
Most debates on here are probabilistic so the bop is just which side is more probable.

If most debates are about which thing is more probable, then how would that work?
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 2:32:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Because of this, the only way to really refute the existence of supernatural claims would be by someone who actually had supernatural experiences and can explain them to be natural and normal experiences. In the case of entheogenic use, the user is experiencing a seemingly 'supernatural' reaction from a drug - which is not supernatural at all, it is actually quite natural for drugs to cause experiences that are out-of-the-oridinary. The term 'supernatural' only depicts 'what cannot be explained' - the real struggle is in proving that these experiences are actually just 'natural' and not 'supernatural' and actually CAN be explained.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 2:32:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes theists have a burden of proof, but atheists tend to forget their burden of proof sometimes in the necessary assertions of alternate ideas they make that are necessary to refute the theists arguments.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 2:33:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 2:30:14 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 4/25/2012 2:26:50 PM, stubs wrote:
Most debates on here are probabilistic so the bop is just which side is more probable.

If most debates are about which thing is more probable, then how would that work?

Click on the debates tab and find out! The only way to win is to lure the opponent into a realm of terms that you've defined.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 2:33:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Generally, at least in my experience on this site, the debates usually have a resolutions something like "Theism is more probable than atheism" or "Atheism is a more probable world view than theism" or "It is probable God exists" Therefore the burden of proof is on both sides to show that there side is more probable than the negation.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 2:37:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 2:32:28 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Because of this, the only way to really refute the existence of supernatural claims would be by someone who actually had supernatural experiences and can explain them to be natural and normal experiences. In the case of entheogenic use, the user is experiencing a seemingly 'supernatural' reaction from a drug - which is not supernatural at all, it is actually quite natural for drugs to cause experiences that are out-of-the-oridinary. The term 'supernatural' only depicts 'what cannot be explained' - the real struggle is in proving that these experiences are actually just 'natural' and not 'supernatural' and actually CAN be explained.

Do you think that supernatural claims could be refuted by contradiction?
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 2:38:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The way to resolve this burden of proof problem simply resides in asserting that 'supernatural' doesn't exist. The experiences are actually JUST natural, as evident in the fact that people have them through natural means (i.e. meditation). Whatever experience described as being supernatural, is actually natural, thus debunking the burden of proof.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 2:41:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm guessing no one watched the video. Cool. Continue your pointless bickering flame-war below.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 2:41:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I, for instance, would happily argue either side, because burdens of proof are not infallible.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 2:43:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Isn't it perfectly normal and natural for a human in this society to experience the existence of God? Of course it is, psychological conditioning phenomena and strange experiences are natural.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 2:45:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Surely the burden of proof depends on the assertion. If you make the assertion "God does not exist" the bop lies on you. If you make the assertion "God does exist" the BOP is on you.
In the absence of any evidence, we make no claim as to it existence. We can make the claim that in the absence of any evidence, the existence of something is very unlikely, but should we make the claim that something does or doesn't exist, we have the BOP.
Therefore, any claim that states that theists solely bear the BOP is false.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 2:46:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 2:41:23 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I'm guessing no one watched the video. Cool. Continue your pointless bickering flame-war below.

I'll be honest I got to the 4min mark and closed the tab haha
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 2:51:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 2:41:23 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I'm guessing no one watched the video. Cool. Continue your pointless bickering flame-war below.

No, I actually watched the entire thing.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 3:04:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 2:51:59 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/25/2012 2:41:23 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I'm guessing no one watched the video. Cool. Continue your pointless bickering flame-war below.

No, I actually watched the entire thing.

I too have watched the whole thing, and I agree with Thaddeus. There still exists a way around the so called burden of proof. This video represents the refusal to attempt to think hyper-critically
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 11:19:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 2:17:38 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Makers of supernatural claims have an inescapable burden of proof.



It seems such analogies (all reflecting contingent creatures) like this^ fail to parody the concept of God, right? God is a maximally great, necessary being whose existence is either possible or impossible, that's what's being proposed here.

The BoP is still on the person who says, "there is no God." Because such a claim is a claim to knowledge, which demands justification. Now you can't say "we can't disprove a negative." Because that's non-sense, I can prove there aren't any dinosaurs today.

So when can we make the leap from "I see none" to "there is none?" Simply following the criteria of justification,

1) We would expect to find more evidence IF X existed
2) Lack such evidence

Aristotle, Bacon and Kant developed wonderful philosophies of science and general inquiry. It's time the non-theist community apply that knowledge to metaphysical questions.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 11:37:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/26/2012 11:19:08 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/25/2012 2:17:38 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Makers of supernatural claims have an inescapable burden of proof.



It seems such analogies (all reflecting contingent creatures) like this^ fail to parody the concept of God, right? God is a maximally great, necessary being whose existence is either possible or impossible, that's what's being proposed here.

The BoP is still on the person who says, "there is no God." Because such a claim is a claim to knowledge, which demands justification. Now you can't say "we can't disprove a negative." Because that's non-sense, I can prove there aren't any dinosaurs today.

So when can we make the leap from "I see none" to "there is none?" Simply following the criteria of justification,

1) We would expect to find more evidence IF X existed
2) Lack such evidence

Aristotle, Bacon and Kant developed wonderful philosophies of science and general inquiry. It's time the non-theist community apply that knowledge to metaphysical questions.

Spot on.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 11:40:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 2:17:38 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Makers of supernatural claims have an inescapable burden of proof.



Funny I had a twitter atheist send me this video.
It misses claim distinctions.
Prove by contrary expectation.
And is one huge strawman to the Theistic claim.

I would also love if the non-theistic community would pony up and admit they do not know how to distinguish a claim when they realize this line of reasoning is bust.

A drug addict stating a polar bear raped him is NOT the same as millions of Theologians assenting to experiencing God.

Not even close. Quality and Quantity make these obviously different.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 11:53:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If I say, that, God and nature are one and the same, then, it merely becomes a game of semantics. Yet, if I make the assertion, that, some creature exists above or beyond the Universe, then, of course the burden of proof lies with me.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:01:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago

Funny I had a twitter atheist send me this video.
It misses claim distinctions.
Prove by contrary expectation.
And is one huge strawman to the Theistic claim.

I would also love if the non-theistic community would pony up and admit they do not know how to distinguish a claim when they realize this line of reasoning is bust.

A drug addict stating a polar bear raped him is NOT the same as millions of Theologians assenting to experiencing God.

Not even close. Quality and Quantity make these obviously different.

In fact the longer I watch this the more I realize this is how the Atheist often argues! Haha!

Think about it, Dawkins claims that life may be by way of unguided evolution: "the Evidence of Evolution reveals a universe without design." But what he actually argues is that there's a Darwinian, naturalistic series for modern life forms. Even if this argument were air tight, it wouldn't show that life, let alone the entire universe is without design!

At best it would show that it is not astronomically improbable that life was produced by unguided evolution and hence without design. Such an argument takes this form,

P is not astronomically improbable

Therefore P

Now ^ that's just like me saying, "for all we know there's a walrus on Pluto!" [Why's that?] "because the arguments for it being improbable fail!" or in other words "it hasn't been dis-proven!"
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:33:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 2:33:56 PM, stubs wrote:
Generally, at least in my experience on this site, the debates usually have a resolutions something like "Theism is more probable than atheism" or "Atheism is a more probable world view than theism" or "It is probable God exists" Therefore the burden of proof is on both sides to show that there side is more probable than the negation.

If the resolution is, "Theism is more probable than atheism" or "It is probable God exists," then the burden of proof is on the theist.

If the resolution is, "Atheism is a more probable world view than theism," then the atheist has the burden.

Absent an agreement to the contrary, whoever makes the assertion has the burden to support that assertion.
TheDiabolicDebater
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 11:46:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 2:17:38 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Makers of supernatural claims have an inescapable burden of proof.



I love QualiaSoup.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 5:25:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Making the argument about a probability does not relieve the burden of proof. Suppose that in the year 1500 we were to debate "A rain god causes rain." What could a rain-atheist say? There is no science of meteorology, so he cannot cite data showing an alternative scientific explanation. The rain god believer can say that there is some chance that a rain god is responsible, but since the rain god atheist has no affirmative case for non-belief beyond the general observation that magical things don't really happen, that the rain god must be affirmed.

No, that fails because the debate is not a choice between two alternatives. The burden is entirely upon the rain god believer to establish cause and effect. That situation was effectively covered in the latter part of the video. The dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof applies. The alternative to any god claim is "we don't know." Convincing proof must be offered that we do have a proved answer and it is the god in question.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 5:48:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 5:25:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Making the argument about a probability does not relieve the burden of proof. Suppose that in the year 1500 we were to debate "A rain god causes rain." What could a rain-atheist say? There is no science of meteorology, so he cannot cite data showing an alternative scientific explanation. The rain god believer can say that there is some chance that a rain god is responsible, but since the rain god atheist has no affirmative case for non-belief beyond the general observation that magical things don't really happen, that the rain god must be affirmed.

No, that fails because the debate is not a choice between two alternatives. The burden is entirely upon the rain god believer to establish cause and effect. That situation was effectively covered in the latter part of the video. The dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof applies. The alternative to any god claim is "we don't know." Convincing proof must be offered that we do have a proved answer and it is the god in question.

I would agree with your statements but setup some guardrails within the rules of debate.
Presumption status must be ascertained prior to the debate. You are setting a naturalistic or physical type of proof for a non physical interaction with the physical. That is presupposing a set of evidence as the only legitimate like laboratory quantitative proof rather than qualitative proof within alternate fields.

It appears underlying all of this video again is merely a presupposing of naturalism. A psychic walrus is a disanalogy as it is a physical entity and would require physical proof. God is not such a being but is non-physical thus an objective person would not presuppose naturalistic physical evidence for such a being. A presuppositionalist would demand it, however.

It just shows the lack of objectivity on a naturalist and the obvious physicality bias that is inherent in nearly every atheistic view.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 6:22:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 5:48:54 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/29/2012 5:25:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Making the argument about a probability does not relieve the burden of proof. Suppose that in the year 1500 we were to debate "A rain god causes rain." What could a rain-atheist say? There is no science of meteorology, so he cannot cite data showing an alternative scientific explanation. The rain god believer can say that there is some chance that a rain god is responsible, but since the rain god atheist has no affirmative case for non-belief beyond the general observation that magical things don't really happen, that the rain god must be affirmed.

No, that fails because the debate is not a choice between two alternatives. The burden is entirely upon the rain god believer to establish cause and effect. That situation was effectively covered in the latter part of the video. The dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof applies. The alternative to any god claim is "we don't know." Convincing proof must be offered that we do have a proved answer and it is the god in question.

I would agree with your statements but setup some guardrails within the rules of debate.
Presumption status must be ascertained prior to the debate. You are setting a naturalistic or physical type of proof for a non physical interaction with the physical. That is presupposing a set of evidence as the only legitimate like laboratory quantitative proof rather than qualitative proof within alternate fields.

It appears underlying all of this video again is merely a presupposing of naturalism. A psychic walrus is a disanalogy as it is a physical entity and would require physical proof. God is not such a being but is non-physical thus an objective person would not presuppose naturalistic physical evidence for such a being. A presuppositionalist would demand it, however.

It just shows the lack of objectivity on a naturalist and the obvious physicality bias that is inherent in nearly every atheistic view.

So all the person in the video would have to present is the mind of a walrus on Pluto to get it right?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 7:45:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 6:22:10 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 4/29/2012 5:48:54 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/29/2012 5:25:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Making the argument about a probability does not relieve the burden of proof. Suppose that in the year 1500 we were to debate "A rain god causes rain." What could a rain-atheist say? There is no science of meteorology, so he cannot cite data showing an alternative scientific explanation. The rain god believer can say that there is some chance that a rain god is responsible, but since the rain god atheist has no affirmative case for non-belief beyond the general observation that magical things don't really happen, that the rain god must be affirmed.

No, that fails because the debate is not a choice between two alternatives. The burden is entirely upon the rain god believer to establish cause and effect. That situation was effectively covered in the latter part of the video. The dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof applies. The alternative to any god claim is "we don't know." Convincing proof must be offered that we do have a proved answer and it is the god in question.

I would agree with your statements but setup some guardrails within the rules of debate.
Presumption status must be ascertained prior to the debate. You are setting a naturalistic or physical type of proof for a non physical interaction with the physical. That is presupposing a set of evidence as the only legitimate like laboratory quantitative proof rather than qualitative proof within alternate fields.

It appears underlying all of this video again is merely a presupposing of naturalism. A psychic walrus is a disanalogy as it is a physical entity and would require physical proof. God is not such a being but is non-physical thus an objective person would not presuppose naturalistic physical evidence for such a being. A presuppositionalist would demand it, however.

It just shows the lack of objectivity on a naturalist and the obvious physicality bias that is inherent in nearly every atheistic view.

So all the person in the video would have to present is the mind of a walrus on Pluto to get it right?

The video is using a misleading vividness fallacy while asserting a 'hidden' physical entity that defies the actual attributes of that entity, hence the disanalogy when applied to God.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 7:55:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 7:45:36 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/29/2012 6:22:10 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 4/29/2012 5:48:54 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/29/2012 5:25:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Making the argument about a probability does not relieve the burden of proof. Suppose that in the year 1500 we were to debate "A rain god causes rain." What could a rain-atheist say? There is no science of meteorology, so he cannot cite data showing an alternative scientific explanation. The rain god believer can say that there is some chance that a rain god is responsible, but since the rain god atheist has no affirmative case for non-belief beyond the general observation that magical things don't really happen, that the rain god must be affirmed.

No, that fails because the debate is not a choice between two alternatives. The burden is entirely upon the rain god believer to establish cause and effect. That situation was effectively covered in the latter part of the video. The dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof applies. The alternative to any god claim is "we don't know." Convincing proof must be offered that we do have a proved answer and it is the god in question.

I would agree with your statements but setup some guardrails within the rules of debate.
Presumption status must be ascertained prior to the debate. You are setting a naturalistic or physical type of proof for a non physical interaction with the physical. That is presupposing a set of evidence as the only legitimate like laboratory quantitative proof rather than qualitative proof within alternate fields.

It appears underlying all of this video again is merely a presupposing of naturalism. A psychic walrus is a disanalogy as it is a physical entity and would require physical proof. God is not such a being but is non-physical thus an objective person would not presuppose naturalistic physical evidence for such a being. A presuppositionalist would demand it, however.

It just shows the lack of objectivity on a naturalist and the obvious physicality bias that is inherent in nearly every atheistic view.

So all the person in the video would have to present is the mind of a walrus on Pluto to get it right?

The video is using a misleading vividness fallacy while asserting a 'hidden' physical entity that defies the actual attributes of that entity, hence the disanalogy when applied to God.

I don't get how the vividness fallacy is being made in this video.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 7:59:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 7:55:08 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 4/29/2012 7:45:36 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/29/2012 6:22:10 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 4/29/2012 5:48:54 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/29/2012 5:25:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Making the argument about a probability does not relieve the burden of proof. Suppose that in the year 1500 we were to debate "A rain god causes rain." What could a rain-atheist say? There is no science of meteorology, so he cannot cite data showing an alternative scientific explanation. The rain god believer can say that there is some chance that a rain god is responsible, but since the rain god atheist has no affirmative case for non-belief beyond the general observation that magical things don't really happen, that the rain god must be affirmed.

No, that fails because the debate is not a choice between two alternatives. The burden is entirely upon the rain god believer to establish cause and effect. That situation was effectively covered in the latter part of the video. The dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof applies. The alternative to any god claim is "we don't know." Convincing proof must be offered that we do have a proved answer and it is the god in question.

I would agree with your statements but setup some guardrails within the rules of debate.
Presumption status must be ascertained prior to the debate. You are setting a naturalistic or physical type of proof for a non physical interaction with the physical. That is presupposing a set of evidence as the only legitimate like laboratory quantitative proof rather than qualitative proof within alternate fields.

It appears underlying all of this video again is merely a presupposing of naturalism. A psychic walrus is a disanalogy as it is a physical entity and would require physical proof. God is not such a being but is non-physical thus an objective person would not presuppose naturalistic physical evidence for such a being. A presuppositionalist would demand it, however.

It just shows the lack of objectivity on a naturalist and the obvious physicality bias that is inherent in nearly every atheistic view.

So all the person in the video would have to present is the mind of a walrus on Pluto to get it right?

The video is using a misleading vividness fallacy while asserting a 'hidden' physical entity that defies the actual attributes of that entity, hence the disanalogy when applied to God.

I don't get how the vividness fallacy is being made in this video.

Hmm. You do not see that a silly concept of a pshycic walrus under pluto is, first silly, then vivid, then misleads via disanalogy as God is nothing like a silly walrus not acting like a known walrus?

Where as God acts just like we would expect a non physical, metaphysical, uncaused, eternal being to act like.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 8:20:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 7:59:15 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/29/2012 7:55:08 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 4/29/2012 7:45:36 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/29/2012 6:22:10 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 4/29/2012 5:48:54 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/29/2012 5:25:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Making the argument about a probability does not relieve the burden of proof. Suppose that in the year 1500 we were to debate "A rain god causes rain." What could a rain-atheist say? There is no science of meteorology, so he cannot cite data showing an alternative scientific explanation. The rain god believer can say that there is some chance that a rain god is responsible, but since the rain god atheist has no affirmative case for non-belief beyond the general observation that magical things don't really happen, that the rain god must be affirmed.

No, that fails because the debate is not a choice between two alternatives. The burden is entirely upon the rain god believer to establish cause and effect. That situation was effectively covered in the latter part of the video. The dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof applies. The alternative to any god claim is "we don't know." Convincing proof must be offered that we do have a proved answer and it is the god in question.

I would agree with your statements but setup some guardrails within the rules of debate.
Presumption status must be ascertained prior to the debate. You are setting a naturalistic or physical type of proof for a non physical interaction with the physical. That is presupposing a set of evidence as the only legitimate like laboratory quantitative proof rather than qualitative proof within alternate fields.

It appears underlying all of this video again is merely a presupposing of naturalism. A psychic walrus is a disanalogy as it is a physical entity and would require physical proof. God is not such a being but is non-physical thus an objective person would not presuppose naturalistic physical evidence for such a being. A presuppositionalist would demand it, however.

It just shows the lack of objectivity on a naturalist and the obvious physicality bias that is inherent in nearly every atheistic view.

So all the person in the video would have to present is the mind of a walrus on Pluto to get it right?

The video is using a misleading vividness fallacy while asserting a 'hidden' physical entity that defies the actual attributes of that entity, hence the disanalogy when applied to God.

I don't get how the vividness fallacy is being made in this video.
sill

God not silly? A homophobe who has even ordered the death of homosexuals who he made homosexual. A God who decided that since we are all imperfect we deserve to be tormented forever, and yet decided that if he has himself tortured and killed by Romans, we can be atoned for our sins.

This is a God who encourages faith based on little critical thinking, a God who will punish people for not believing in him yet does not provide the kind of evidence that will convince them.

This is a God who is somehow invisible and completely immaterial yet can somehow do anything. Come on, a person who can do anything? He is immaterial yet can do things in the material world, and can event create it from nothing. This is a guy who sits outside time, is that vivid enough?

He is the guy who took it out on all of Egypt for the stubbornness of one man, their pharoah. He is the guy who supported sexism in the new testament and slavery and genocide in the old and yet claims to be omnibenevolent.

His nature and exploits are detailed in the bible, so yes God is very very silly and also very vivid too.