RE: standard of evidence
October 2, 2013 at 9:43 pm
(This post was last modified: October 2, 2013 at 9:53 pm by bennyboy.)
(October 2, 2013 at 11:32 am)Rational AKD Wrote: lastly, you don't seem to want to answer the questions I have. I have 2 simple questions. what kind of evidence is acceptable to show God exists, and how much evidence is adequate? it would be much appreciated if these questions were answered rather than dodged.
What kind of evidence is acceptable to show that boobledyboo exists? I don't know. But if you want to make a positive assertion about the existence about boobledyboo, you'll have to show that something I can observe, or infer from observations, should be considered evidence for boobledyboo. YOU have to tell me what your evidence is, and why it's evidence for more than what I happen just to be looking at.
As for quantity-- ONE piece of evidence is sufficient. Define God, and show me one thing that can be attributed to God and nothing else, and you've proven God.
(October 2, 2013 at 5:16 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: any belief proposing a certainty of more than 50% in truth value and by its nature less than 50% for the negating proposition requires burden of proof. if they are exactly the same in plausibility, you can't say one is more rational than the other. you must say they are equally plausible if both sides have equal evidence or no evidence.Prove that boobledyboo doesn't exist. Prove that magic space monkeys don't exist. Prove that there isn't a microscopic society of superior aliens living in my socks? You can't prove any of those things-- but even if I find them highly plausible, my feelings about plausibility are not going to get you to take my claims seriously.
Belief is evidence only of belief. The REASON for believing something is as important as the belief itself. The reason the atheists don't believe there's a God is that they are familiar with Christian evidence, and don't find it of sufficient quality to accept positive assertions about the existence of God. Nothing in the Bible, or said in church, has sufficient credibility for them even to consider the God idea as representing something real.
The reason YOU believe in God is not based on physical observations of the universe, presumably. So what IS it based on? What evidence is it that you feel is better than a good pair of eyes and a telescope or microscope?
