Fair to Challenge Claims?

[JoeyKnothead]

In another thread there is much complaining about atheists challenging theist claims. I find it a bit weird, what with this being a debate site and all, but there we go.

For debate:

Is it fair for atheists to challenge theist claims on this, a debate site?

Is it fair for atheists to challenge theist claims outside of debate?

What are the real and possible ramifications of challenging theist claims?

What are the real and possible ramifications of allowing theist claims to go unchallenged?

[Crazy Ivan]

I pointed out that I wasn't asking you to comment on the other lights, but thought that "not green" was a perfectly valid counterclaim.

Let's put it this way... why should one bother to offer the counterclaim of "not green", if after debate it stands as just as likely a possibility from the inability to substantiate or evidence "green", which was the only purpose of debate to the one challenging the claim as being more likely than anything else? It's one thing to positively argue "not green" if we also have "yellow" or "red" as measurable alternatives. If the alternatives are as varied as someone's imagination allows, and each inherently subjective and not measurable, alternatives or counterclaims are pointless. The only goal of several people in this forum is to demonstrate there's no particular reason to believe in one god over another, or over "no god" at all, and whether or not they're atheists is irrelevant to the point.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 218:

As in my analogy there awhile back, we can examine the claim, "The traffic light is on green" without bothering with knowing the properties of the other lights involved.

I would still like a response to my comments about the traffic light, actually.

Sorry, I missed it...
--------------------

From Post 199:

Is a traffic light on green? This question can be answered solely by considering the properties of illumination and / or green, and need not bother with the properties of red or yellow.

A counterclaim, as I meant it, didn't need to mention red or yellow at all. It could simply be "it is not green". If someone is saying "I challenge your claim that it is green, but I'm not saying it isn't green", that's where I start to wonder about the validity of the conversation. The person is, quite specifically, not saying that the claim is wrong, and is therefore not making a case against it.

In asking for confirmation, the claimant can show the light is actually emitting photons, with no counterclaim necessary.

I definitely agree an alternate explanation can assist us all, but don't think it necessary in all (most?) cases.

Got it, but support needed. Why should I (or the observer) change my (his/her) position to agree with you about that?

As in the light analogy, the claimant doesn't even have to wait to be challenged before they present their photon experiments.

What I am saying is that the truthfulness of a claim is relatively independent of alternate explanations.

The first thing I'd like to do is to challenge that claim.
...

"I have an automobile."
"Challenge."
"Here's the title."

No discussion of whether that automobile is a horse is required.

Assuming that I do understand, is there a reason why I should believe it?

Because it's a true statement.

And, so as not to be completely hypocritical, my counterclaim is (not shockingly) that we can't determine whether or not we should accept a claim in a vacuum.

>Throws title to one beatup Ford Ranger Pickup on the floor to get stuck when the vacuum runs over it<

Relatively independent. I don't doubt some claims may be harder to consider in a vacuum than others, but contend many (most?) can. See the above example of a traffic light.

I responded (and clarified a bit) there, but still need support.

Supported above with reference to testing the light for photon emission.

I'd say that last is exactly my trouble. All we have shown is that a particular person is unable to support that particular claim. It tells us nothing of the claim itself, and certainly nothing of similar claims.

Such is the nature of some claims. I think this is especially in place when we consider claims based in logic or reason in the absence of physical, emperical evidence. Here then I think the need to consider alternates becomes more important, but may or may not be needed to determine the veracity of an initial claim.

I don't know that my comment here was addressed with your final statement. As such, I'm going to try to spare you another repetition of my position, and simply ask again for support.

Just like with my claim that a god exists, the inability to support the assertion doesn't negate the claim until we've searched the entire universe and perhaps beyond.

That's why I argue that discussing claims in a vacuum is unproductive. As to why I consider a comparison analysis a better approach:

You've won me there, but I still don't think it applies to all claims, nor need apply to all claims.

Thanks!
Getting into proving that it applies to all claims is probably an unhelpful tangent. I think I'll just maintain that it definitely applies to the debate over God's existence. But, if you can provide a claim to which it would clearly not apply, I'd definitely take that as support for your overall case.

I don't think it needs apply to claims of God's existence. The claimant offers a given point in support, we examine that point, and we can either accept or disavow that point.

This is kinda my point. Where I can't honorably defend any alternate explanation, I consider it a derailment of the debate, and not always necessary in considering the merits of the initial claim.

I can understand that. I've had that situation on many topics. Either I'm ignorant of how little I can defend (which is a whole 'nother story), or I realize it, and decide not to debate. I can make a side comment or two, but admit quickly that I'm not really making a case about the veracity of any claim, because I know I can't support it.

So then you challenge me to support my assertion, perhaps admitting you have no supportable alternate explanation.

See my example of the traffic light. We can draw a reliable conclusion regarding "is green on", without bothering with the other lights.

I agree, but we can't do as much without deciding between "green" and "not green". I don't personally see why we should consider and reject "green" based on inadequate support without doing the same for "not green". This seems inconsistent.

Now we get back into implied alternatives, where there is a definite yes / no answer. Some claims may not allow such a binary argument, where there are many possibilities, and your request for alternatives could prove helpful.

That's not to say that I'm pushing any particular answer here, it simply means that we've all answered that question with our actions. I feel that those actions should be informed by a line of reasoning regarding the question, rather than by an avoidance of it.

This is true for my go / no go brethren, but not applicable to those who think, "Well, I see no evidence for God, so I'm gonna live a certain way". Notice here the issue of non-existence (alternate explanation) doesn't come into play.

It may or may not come into play in terms of this person's conscious thinking, but he/she is still living one way or the other (my guess: as if God does not exist). That's each individual's choice, of course, but saying that it "doesn't come into play" doesn't mean that the person is living in some neutral fashion.
...

Plowed under.

I agree on the issue of "God / not God", folks will live as if one or the other answer is valid. This still, to me, doesn't require the challenger to support their implied position when challenging a particular claim - though such could be helpful.

I know I'm rehashing a bit of the same matter I covered with the science analogy here, but I do feel that I need an explanation of what "shown to be true" means, if not "more likely than not". In this world of uncertainty (we can't prove anything), I don't feel that there's much of anything about which I can say "that's not just more likely than not; it's been shown to be true".
Is there anything about which you would say that?
...

Is the traffic light on green?

I don't really understand this response.
Is that to say that the traffic light has been shown to be green, as opposed to it being more likely that it's green than that I'm just mistaken/need glasses?

Very much. The claimant either supports the notion or not. Of course this falls into the binary true / false, and other issues may be too complex for such a simple answer.

I don't see any way that the traffic light can be shown to be green or not green either one absolutely. We can't even prove absolutely that it exists at all (or that it doesn't exist).

Which becomes a problem for the one making statements regarding the traffic light.

So, basically, could you explain that one? I'm not picking up what you're getting at here.

Hopefully the above responses clear it up.

And we notice there are those folks here, across the a/religious spectrum who don't post what they can't honorably defend.

I agree that this is a good thing.
I personally can't defend any absolute claim, and try very hard not to make them.
I do, however, feel that I can defend provisional claims about likelihood. That seems to me to be the way to go.
...

I have no immediate objection to this angle.

If, however, one can't even defend a provisional claim about likelihood (on a given subject), then I would say that one's challenges don't say much about the subject itself.

I would say the problem lies with the one making provisional claims, and not with the one asking for evidence those claims are factual. You are again ostensibly asking the challenger to support claims they can't honorably defend, while just a couple sentences ago you agreed it was a good thing not to make claims one can't support. That is inconsistent.

On a side note, I really like the quote in your signature, and me and the pretty thing have had a couple really deep conversations regarding its implications.

[Grumpy]

Jester

I pointed out that I wasn't asking you to comment on the other lights, but thought that "not green" was a perfectly valid counterclaim.

The point was that in almost all positive claims(X) "not X" is the inherent counterclaim. Until X is evidenced not X is the default.

I see no reason to change views that I find to be the most likely case if my opponents admit openly that they can offer nothing better.

We can offer better explanations but why bother when your paradigm is totally based on supernatural speculation? What you are claiming as most likely has no evidence to suggest it is likely at all. Why should we have to make active alternative claims when your claims are so outside known science? Creationism was rejected because a better explanation has been found, you must give a good reason and new evidence to show it would even be in competition with evolution as a valid explanation. Each theory must be able to support itself without reference to other alternative theories(though they may be explaining the same things).

After hearing the definition and the case (and assuming I wanted to debate the matter), I would then make a statement against the existence of "schnorbs" and defend that statement.

Such a statement is not necessary if schnorbs have not been shown(by presenting evidence)to exist at all. If we had to "disprove" every superstition in order to judge it's likelihood we would have situations where a theist simply makes one unevidenced statement after another and floods his post with religious dogma and then says "You can't prove it isn't so" or "The Bible tells me so".

It is not necessary to defeat each claim in detail if none of them are evidenced, they can be dismissed out of hand. That is one reason we have rule 5, to avoid argumentum by deluge of crap.

We haven't yet been able to find a means of testing String Theory. As such, there really isn't any evidence in support of it (in spite of how promising it currently looks to many scientists).

String Theory was developed because there was evidence that suggested the need for such a theory, not because someone wrote a book of fiction. They built a multi-billion accelerator at CERN to test these things(and others). It was the evidence generated by current accelerators that convinced them of the need. String Theory will stand or fall on it's own merits THEN it will be compared to other theories. String would not even be considered unless there was evidence to support it. They certainly didn't build it to produce evidence for counterclaims to religious claims.

Thus far, I've received only reiterations of the claim from a group which insists that evidence must be provided in order to accept a claim.

That this position is perfectly logical and consistent with what we expect from every other claim(UFO, Werewolves, Ghosts, Hollow Earth)doesn't count when it comes to god claims? I'm sorry, your god claims must meet a certain level of plausibility before they can even be considered in relation to other theories.

Is there a good reason to question the idea that a claim is true, but specifically refuse any requests to examine the scenario in which a claim is false?

Not getting what you are asking here.

Again, you are ignoring the inherent counterclaim to any positive statement, no alternative positive or negative claim is necessary to require that the original claim be supported by evidence.

I don't feel that I'm ignoring that claim. I feel that I am challenging it.

Again, why should we waste any time whatsoever on outlandish, unscientific claims of magic? That is all god claims are if unsupported by evidence. If we were discussing philosophical views this might not be true, but you are making claims about the real world, claims that cannot be true given what we know about the sciences involved.

It is a useless excersize to argue over unevidenced claims other than to point out the lack of support.

If there were an evidenced competing claim, that would definitely be useful.

But it is not a requirement when one of the claims is totally unsupported by anything other than religious beliefs. You don't think the Flood happened because physical evidence convinced you of that(though you may try to support it by cherry picking some and ignoring, misinterpreting or denying everything else), it was a story in a book. I've read many stories in books, many are fantastical tales of magic and science fiction(including L Ron Hubbard). But even in the "hardest" SF I do not accept claims made in the story unless they are supported by outside evidence(example: Faster Than Light travel=not possible). The claims made about stories in the Bible rise above that need in what way, exactly?

Also, all the talk of unevidenced claims does incline me to point out that this has not yet been established of Christianity. In fact, there was a specific moderator ruling that established (for the purposes of this site) that the New Testament is non-conclusive evidence of the resurrection.

Are you laboring under the false impression that such a ruling changes reality. It is only evidence that a religion claims that the resurrection happened, it says absolutely nothing about whether such a claim is true. Without real, supporting evidence the resurrection is not any more(or less)likely than any other religious claim unsupported by evidence and not even in the same category as scientific claims when it comes to veracity.

Grumpy

[Jester]

Yes, I now see your concern. What I mean to say when I claim that a definition, to be meaningful, must be evidential is that the definition itself must give us an idea of what we are talking about and where or if we can find it. If we attempt to define 'schnorbs' and are intent on supplying whatever we want to the definition regardless of whether any have been detected, the word 'schnorb' can refer to anything and is thus meaningless...and not evidential,ie, the definition itself has no substance. I am proposing it is the same as to 'gods'.

Okay, if I understand this correctly, then I should not take this to mean that definitions are evidence in themselves, but simply that a definition should let us know, in clear terms, what it is that we are looking for.
Given that, are we in agreement that a definition is not in itself evidence?

Historical documents have always been accepted as evidence of the events they describe. This does not make them conclusive evidence, but, unless you can establish your claims of "hearsay" and "speculation", this would apply here.
Can that be established? What support would you use?

In courts of law, historical documents...

I'm not convinced that courts of law are the model we should follow. I'd comment further, but for that.

The NT is perhaps historical in it's rendition of many things( I am no historian), but is certainly not 'historical' as to the existence of a God nor his supposed activities on this planet. Reports as to sightings of and visitations from this 'God' related in the NT are hearsay. Do you claim that these reports are something other than hearsay?

Not at the moment. I understand that this is your position. But, on this topic, I'm not arguing against it. I am merely pointing out that it has not been established - meaning that arguments which depend on it are only as strong as one's agreement with you over the moderator ruling to that end.

Jester wrote:

I see no reason to change views that I find to be the most likely case if my opponents admit openly that they can offer nothing better.
If you feel that there is a reason that this is somehow dishonorable, I am happy to discuss.

'Better' is subjective, and hardly a basis upon which to 'pack cards' on either side.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Either way, if both sides agree that nothing better has been offered, I feel confident in my appraisal here.

Just because the debate opponent does not accept a definition in your initial premise or finds it lacking, and as a consequence demands verifiable evidence doesn't require him to then offer an alternative does it?

I don't suppose anyone is required to do anything (save follow the rules of the forum). I've not insisted as much here. I've only pointed out that failing to answer a question will make building a case regarding that question impossible. There is nothing here, expressly or implied, that amounts to requiring anything from an individual.

As to the matter of 'demand[ing] verifiable evidence', I have requested support for the evidentialism underlying this approach to reaching conclusions - as well as support for the idea that it is possible to maintain a neutral position in daily life. Thus far, I don't recall any attempts being made.
Essentially, I am requesting support myself, and don't seem to be getting any.

Well answered. Let's try it.
'Schnorb'---a supernatural being existing in new and expensive automobiles and which give those sitting in them a sense of superiority and well being.
Go

I'm not sure I see the point of this. I'm certainly not interested in debating "schnorb", and imagine that you aren't either - save to draw parallels to the debate over the God concept. The definition you provide, however, doesn't apply to any of my supports for God's existence, however, leaving me feeling that it will be useless for drawing meaningful parallels.

[Jester]

I pointed out that I wasn't asking you to comment on the other lights, but thought that "not green" was a perfectly valid counterclaim.

Let's put it this way...

I apologize in advance if this is a bit redundant, but I don't need this put in a new way. I've read the claim, and understand the concept. I simply disagree.
This doesn't make either of us inherently right - but what I need now isn't a rephrasing of the overall position, it is a response to my specific challenges. To the end that I've not made these clear, I'll try again.

why should one bother to offer the counterclaim of "not green",

If one is not claiming that the light is not green, then one is not building a case that it is not green. That's fine if one is not interested in so doing. I don't see, however, that anyone has really established the claim that the light is green to be false, or even more likely to be false than true without building this case.
I understand that you aren't directly interested in whether a claim is more likely to be true or false, but do see that position as irrelevant to the consideration of a claim. I don't see the reasoning behind separating the question of whether or not to believe something from the question of whether or not that thing is true. I would request support for that philosophy before accepting it.

if after debate it stands as just as likely a possibility from the inability to substantiate or evidence "green", which was the only purpose of debate to the one challenging the claim as being more likely than anything else?

What is "anything else", in context of the debate? If the purpose of the debate for you was to see if the claim of green was more likely than any other option presented, then the answer is simple, but hardly satisfying (to you or I). It is "yes" if no other option is presented.
I don't see how we can claim the relative likelihood of any options included in "anything else" unless we actually compare them to the claim.

It's one thing to positively argue "not green" if we also have "yellow" or "red" as measurable alternatives. If the alternatives are as varied as someone's imagination allows, and each inherently subjective and not measurable, alternatives or counterclaims are pointless.

This is simply the argument that you don't see any valid way to debate the topic of God's existence. The possibilities are indeed abstract, and it is very difficult to draw solid conclusions.
If you feel that it is impossible, it is certainly your choice to not draw a conclusion - or not engage in this question for debate. But, if you take this path, you are not debating the question and not building a case toward any conclusion regarding it.
Again, I'm not arguing against the validity of this as a personal position, but only against the idea that this constitutes making a case on-topic. It does not.
In fact, many position (personally, I suspect every position) we hold keeps us from debating certain topics. I can't (without dishonesty) make a case in a debate over the mechanisms of reincarnation precisely because I don't believe in it. Likewise, if you don't believe in the validity of the question of God's existence, you can't debate it. That is not a qualitative statement about your position, but merely a natural result of it.

The only goal of several people in this forum is to demonstrate there's no particular reason to believe in one god over another, or over "no god" at all

This is perfectly valid. Please don't take anything I've written here as a statement that you should not do so.
I would simply point out that your understanding of the question "is there a reason to believe in God" and my understanding of the question "does God exist" are different. I am not interested in the former question, as it seems so divorced from considering the subject matter (God) that its proponents admit openly that they do not make claims on that matter. As someone who is interested in whether or not God exists, I wish only to discuss that question.

Of course, I would still like support for the evidentialist stance that drives the idea a claim should be rejected without comparison to the alternatives unless a certain minimum of demonstration can be made. I haven't yet received any, but would be far more likely to accept your position if a strong case could be made for it.

whether or not they're atheists is irrelevant to the point.

I agree, which is why, in spite of having personal beliefs on the matter, I tend not to be interested in debating the definition of this term.

[Flail]

Flail wrote:

Yes, I now see your concern. What I mean to say when I claim that a definition, to be meaningful, must be evidential is that the definition itself must give us an idea of what we are talking about and where or if we can find it. If we attempt to define 'schnorbs' and are intent on supplying whatever we want to the definition regardless of whether any have been detected, the word 'schnorb' can refer to anything and is thus meaningless...and not evidential,ie, the definition itself has no substance. I am proposing it is the same as to 'gods'.

Jester responded:

Okay, if I understand this correctly, then I should not take this to mean that definitions are evidence in themselves, but simply that a definition should let us know, in clear terms, what it is that we are looking for.
Given that,are we in agreement that a definition is not in itself evidence?

Perhaps we have devolved into semantics. I mean to say that a definition is evidence of itself, and defining 'schnorbs' without an honest description of to what it refers is meaningless and it's very definition is the evidence that this is so.
Jester wrote:

I see no reason to change views that I find to be the most likely case if my opponents admit openly that they can offer nothing better.
If you feel that there is a reason that this is somehow dishonorable, I am happy to discuss.

Flail responded:

'Better' is subjective, and hardly a basis upon which to 'pack cards' on either side.

Jester wrote:

Perhaps, perhaps not. Either way, if both sides agree that nothing better has been offered, I feel confident in my appraisal here.

If one side has offered nothing, there is nothing to counter.

Just because the debate opponent does not accept a definition in your initial premise or finds it lacking, and as a consequence demands verifiable evidence doesn't require him to then offer an alternative does it?

Jester wrote:

I don't suppose anyone is required to do anything (save follow the rules of the forum). I've not insisted as much here. I've only pointed out that failing to answer a question will make building a case regarding that question impossible. There is nothing here, expressly or implied, that amounts to requiring anything from an individual.

Agreed, but only so far as the question posits a rational initial premise. Here is a question with such a premise that is often unanswered by theists:
"How do you believe in the 'God of the Bible' without verifiable evidence to support your belief?" Failing to answer this question 'makes building a case regarding that question impossible.'
Until and unless verifiable evidence is produced to define and verify the existence of any supernatural being(s), I will remain neutral while I search and wait.

Well answered. Let's try it.
'Schnorb'---a supernatural being existing in new and expensive automobiles and which give those sitting in them a sense of superiority and well being.
Go

Jester wrote:

I'm not sure I see the point of this. I'm certainly not interested in debating "schnorb", and imagine that you aren't either - save to draw parallels to the debate over the God...

This is precisely my point. Debating the actual existence of 'gods' is the same as debating the actual existence of 'schnorbs'. The verifiable evidence for 'schnorbs' is the same as for 'gods'. Until and unless we have something to define, and verifiable evidence upon which to draw logical inferences, meaningful debate as to actual existence is impossible.

[Crazy Ivan]

Jester, again you presume that discussion or debate on the issue of a god's existence is limited to arguing for or against, as opposed to also arguing why someone's "for" or "against" arguments are inadequate or fallacious, which does NOT imply the opposite position is held. I repeat that this is NOT your prerogative. Your presumption, as I have gathered, is that the building of such a case does not constitute debate. Regardless of all else, I just want you to acknowledge that presenting a case that a claim has not been objectively supported, or that BY ITSELF it does not warrant any more belief than any other alternative (which in the absence of objective evidence do not even have to be offered), does in fact constitute debate, and is perfectly legitimate in this forum. This is all. I have clearly substantiated my argument through Merriam definitions of "debate" which you have not disputed. Despite that, you have not withdrawn previous claims that challenging a claim on its own merits, building a case that there is no reason to accept a claim as true, as opposed to building a case that it is false, does not constitute debate. I expect you to do the honorable thing, and admit you were completely out of line, stating this approach does not belong in the forum.

[Crazy Ivan]

In a nutshell:

Person A states a debatable question concerning the merits of the claim X. As in "is X true or false?"

Person B will argue why it's true.
Person C will argue why it's false.
Person D will argue how person B's arguments are fallacious and do not support the position that X is true, thus no belief in the truth of the claim based on those arguments is warranted.

All I want is an acknowledgement that person D is engaged in debate and discussion concerning X, which can be "God exists". Simple.

[Flail]

Crazy Ivan wrote:

Jester, again you presume that discussion or debate on the issue of a god's existence is limited to arguing for or against, as opposed to also arguing why someone's "for" or "against" arguments are inadequate or fallacious, which does NOT imply the opposite position is held. I repeat that this is NOT your prerogative.

Not intending to 'pile on' Jester, but this has been my point as well. I have contended, in keeping with Crazy Ivan's point above, that debating the existence or non-existence of 'god' is meaningless until and unless we have a real world definition of an objectifiable supernatural being that might qualify and verifiable evidence upon which to analyze an initial premise as to the existence of such a creature. Jester, I think, contends that my position is not honorable debate because I do not offer an alternative claim. I agree with CIvan that it is not Jester's perogative to demand alternative claims or to imply that I hold a position which I have never claimed...ie that 'god' doesn't exist. I don't claim that 'god' does not exist. I have absolutely no debatable idea of what a 'god' would be, let alone whether 'one' exists somewhere...and neither does Jester...IMO.

[Jester]

A counterclaim, as I meant it, didn't need to mention red or yellow at all. It could simply be "it is not green". If someone is saying "I challenge your claim that it is green, but I'm not saying it isn't green", that's where I start to wonder about the validity of the conversation. The person is, quite specifically, not saying that the claim is wrong, and is therefore not making a case against it.

In asking for confirmation, the claimant can show the light is actually emitting photons, with no counterclaim necessary.

In the event that we cant test directly whether or not the light is emitting photons (which would more closely parallel an abstract subject), I dont at all see a problem with asserting that the light is more likely to be green than not based on some kind of indirect reasoning.
Whether such reasoning is valid or not, a simple challenge wont address it. Instead, it needs to be shown which case is more likely. Hence, the need to compare it to the likelihood of not green.

Got it, but support needed. Why should I (or the observer) change my (his/her) position to agree with you about that?

As in the light analogy, the claimant doesn't even have to wait to be challenged before they present their photon experiments.

I didnt say otherwise. Such a presentation can happen at any time, as far as I am concerned.
What cant happen at any time is the judgment of the overall case. It is demanding that the case in favor of green is more likely is invalid without showing that the reasoning supporting not-green is more likely is better.

"I have an automobile."
"Challenge."
"Here's the title."

No discussion of whether that automobile is a horse is required.

Okay, corrections:
This would be a be a discussion between car and no car. As with the light analogy horse wouldnt remotely be something Id require.
Much more significantly, were still comparing two options here. Unless you are arguing that the title proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the claim is true, then we are not so much saying that the claim has been established individually, but merely makes more sense than the idea that the title is a forgery or other such objections.

Assuming that I do understand, is there a reason why I should believe it?

Because it's a true statement.

Please pretend for a moment that you hear this exact line of reasoning from someone who feels it supports the claim that God exists. What would you say to it?

Given that thought, could you please explain why I should believe this claim?

And, so as not to be completely hypocritical, my counterclaim is (not shockingly) that we can't determine whether or not we should accept a claim in a vacuum.

>Throws title to one beatup Ford Ranger Pickup on the floor to get stuck when the vacuum runs over it<

Whew! I say. That was close. If wed been trying to use that as evidence that the idea you owned a car is more likely than not, wed have just mangled a significant document. Since we were trying to say it was proof so unquestionable that we didnt need to even think about anything else, it wasnt really measuring up anyway and may as well get mangled.

Just like with my claim that a god exists, the inability to support the assertion doesn't negate the claim until we've searched the entire universe and perhaps beyond.

I agree, which is why I dont see any point in focusing solely on the ability of a person to support an assertion. I dont see searching the universe and beyond happening any time soon, meaning that a claim isnt being negated unless someone builds the case that it is false.

I don't think [needing to provide an alternative claim] needs apply to claims of God's existence. The claimant offers a given point in support, we examine that point, and we can either accept or disavow that point.

Im aware that this is your position, I was asking for support of that.

I can understand that. I've had that situation on many topics. Either I'm ignorant of how little I can defend (which is a whole 'nother story), or I realize it, and decide not to debate. I can make a side comment or two, but admit quickly that I'm not really making a case about the veracity of any claim, because I know I can't support it.

So then you challenge me to support my assertion, perhaps admitting you have no supportable alternate explanation.

No, I make a side comment or two (if I felt the need), but admitting that the lack of a suitable alternate explanation means admitting that any challenge would be impotent.

See my example of the traffic light. We can draw a reliable conclusion regarding "is green on", without bothering with the other lights.

I agree, but we can't do as much without deciding between "green" and "not green". I don't personally see why we should consider and reject "green" based on inadequate support without doing the same for "not green". This seems inconsistent.

Now we get back into implied alternatives, where there is a definite yes / no answer. Some claims may not allow such a binary argument, where there are many possibilities, and your request for alternatives could prove helpful.

Could you provide some examples of claims that are valid points of debate, but do not allow a definite yes/no answer regarding the truth or falsehood of them?

I agree on the issue of "God / not God", folks will live as if one or the other answer is valid. This still, to me, doesn't require the challenger to support their implied position when challenging a particular claim - though such could be helpful.

Other than repeat that request for support, Id say that it is vital if we are at all interested in living our lives in a way that is most likely to reflect the truth. If our actions speak one answer over the other, shouldnt we want them to speak the one that is most likely the case?

I know I'm rehashing a bit of the same matter I covered with the science analogy here, but I do feel that I need an explanation of what "shown to be true" means, if not "more likely than not". In this world of uncertainty (we can't prove anything), I don't feel that there's much of anything about which I can say "that's not just more likely than not; it's been shown to be true".
Is there anything about which you would say that?
...

Is the traffic light on green?

I don't really understand this response.
Is that to say that the traffic light has been shown to be green, as opposed to it being more likely that it's green than that I'm just mistaken/need glasses?

Very much. The claimant either supports the notion or not. Of course this falls into the binary true / false, and other issues may be too complex for such a simple answer.

Okay, so you are claiming here that it is not simply more likely that the light is green than that my eyes are bad, Im colorblind, or Im a brain in a vat imagining that there is a light which is green? Instead, you are claiming that the greenness has been shown to be true with such certainty that most likely doesnt even count " were not even going to pretend to consider other ideas?
That seems to me to be what is being logically said here. Could you let me know how it is that something can be shown to be true, in this sense of the phrase, given the above?

I don't see any way that the traffic light can be shown to be green or not green either one absolutely. We can't even prove absolutely that it exists at all (or that it doesn't exist).

Which becomes a problem for the one making statements regarding the traffic light.

It becomes a problem for anyone trying to say anything about the traffic light, doesnt it?
If you arent saying anything about the traffic light, but merely challenging, I suppose thats not your problem, but you arent actually saying anything on-topic (since the topic was the traffic light).
Of course, you can say hasnt been shown to be true about the greenness all you want without having a problem here.
That only leaves the question: what, other than math and alcohol, has been shown to be true by these standards.

I personally can't defend any absolute claim, and try very hard not to make them.
I do, however, feel that I can defend provisional claims about likelihood. That seems to me to be the way to go.

I have no immediate objection to this angle.

I heartily recommend it. It is a great way to build cases without dishonesty about what you can or cant know for sure " or prove in a debate.

If, however, one can't even defend a provisional claim about likelihood (on a given subject), then I would say that one's challenges don't say much about the subject itself.

I would say the problem lies with the one making provisional claims, and not with the one asking for evidence those claims are factual.

Im aware that you would say that. Im wondering more about support of it, though.

You are again ostensibly asking the challenger to support claims they can't honorably defend,

If a challenger cant honorably defend even a provisional claim which contradicts mine, then I see no reason to take the implications of their challenges seriously. I attempt to make cases; even weak ones strike me as better than non-existent ones.
Given that, to what, exactly, should I be expected to change my position on God?

while just a couple sentences ago you agreed it was a good thing not to make claims one can't support. That is inconsistent.

Yes, if you cant even support the provisional claim that Gods existence is false, you should not make that claim. I dont see it as all inconsistent with that claim to feel that an inability to do so should be taken as a reason to discredit the implications of any challenges given by that individual.
My position has been, one makes at least a provisional claim or isnt debating the topic. An inability to do the former does not exclude one from the later.

On a side note, I really like the quote in your signature, and me and the pretty thing have had a couple really deep conversations regarding its implications.

Thats excellent! " Though I have to admit that I stole it from another member (sadly, I cant seem to remember whom). Its an ideal I try to reach for (with varied success) in these posts.