(October 25, 2014 at 4:27 pm)trmof Wrote:(October 25, 2014 at 4:20 pm)Chuck Wrote: You pleaded for a greatly reduced standard of evidence for the existence of your pet deity compared to existence of just about anything a reasonable person would accept as real and disingenuously phrased it as a leading question.
You neglected to notice that 1. Reduced standard of evidence reduces the credibility of any proposition barely meeting that standard. 2. Using this reduced standard allows any other deity to be proven to the same standard, and thus reducing the believeability of your particular pet dirty which claims to be the only one even though new lowered standard of evidence esuggest there are many.
The question is about your personal standard of evidence, it's not making a particular statement either way about whether my particular Go exists. If you are not actually interested in exploring the questions I asked, I'm confused as to why you keep commenting on the post. You appear to be looking to start an argument, whereas I am looking to start a civil discussion about the nature of evidence. Hence the title.
It is a mark of honesty to start any such discussion by clarifying your own position, rather than by asking leading questions without nailing down your own position so as to be able to slip and slide and never admit defeat.
So what is your stamndard of evidence and why is that satisfactory?
