How to refute the Sagan Standard in the case of the existence of God?

[Sheldon]

@Druso

Do you adhere exclusively to scientific skepticism? Do you consider other forms of knowledge?

So firstly you seem to have ignored my point, about you basing a belief on something you assert is “unverifiable”? However I already answered this question in my post? Assuming this is directed at me, you might want to use the quote function, and or the reply icon.

Here

@Sheldon

Outside of the methodologies of science, it (Sagan Standard my ref), needs no refutation, since one can set as low a bar for personal credulity as they wish.

The methodology of science is designed to remove as much subjective bias as possible, it sets a very high standard (when properly applied), now why and to what end would one set a lower standard to critically examine claims? As you’re suggesting one should do in your opening post, and for clams you asserted were unverifiable of course?

@Druso

Do you consider other forms of knowledge?

Consider them how, and for what?

@Druso

1- Philosophical Knowledge
2-Religious Knowledge
3-Artistic/Aesthetic Knowledge
4-Intuitive/Experiential Knowledge
5-Traditional/Indigenous Knowledge
6-Practical/Technical Knowledge

Why not just tell us which deity you believe exists and why? I can tell you right now, my threshold for credulity, broadly speaking, is that any claim be supported by sufficient, and sufficiently objective evidence. I know of no objective evidence that demonstrates any deity or deities, or anything supernatural exists, or is even possible.

So this then is your first hurdle in convincing me that any such claim is true. Any attempt to reverse the burden of proof will fail, as my atheism is not itself a claim or belief about any deity or deities.

@Calilasseia

If a postulate is not verifiable, then you have a BIG problem

Bingo, it implies either that it unfalsifiable, or that it provides no data to examine, or both of course.

@mordant

Philosophy uses logic, reason and critical thinking to explore fundamental questions, and so is rigorous about how it functions. But to the extent it draws conclusions that aren’t testable, it is informed speculation, just like anything else.

Exactly so, if philosophy were a better method than science for understanding reality, then we would never have created the scientific method, why would we need it?

@Kevin_Levites

The claim that there are large cockroaches in my garage should not require the same standard of evidence as the claim that there is a unicorn in my garage.

Whilst I’d agree, they both would need to meet a minimum standard, they are different claims prima facie, as one of them is demonstrably possible, whereas we have no evidence the other is.

@Kevin_Levites

I’m open-minded . . . but not so open-minded that my brains fall out.

I agree, and If there is a more maligned or misused phrase by religious apologists, than open minded, I don’t know what it is. It simply means one treats all ideas and claims the same, without favour or prejudice, especially ideas that challenge existing beliefs and idea. It very neatly and accurately defines the scientific method of course.