On the nature of evidence.

[trmof]

As for my personal testimony, I plan on posting that at some point in the near future in another part of the forum. Feel free to dissect it there.

I'll save you the time of posting-- the wonderful feelings and deep sense of connection you have are all emotions, and you do not have any more reason to believe in your God than Hindus do in theirs, or the dog-talking serial killer in his.

I'm glad you're so open minded. I'll save you the time responding and point out that this is sarcasm.

---

Giving mankind undiscovered secrets of physics would be very unwise for even a PERSON to do, let alone a God. The first thing we have done with any new piece of scientific knowledge is start exploring the possibilities of weaponizing it.

Your assumption that it will immediately lead to a weapon proves you don't know much about physics.

You can ask your god to tell you how to cure aids, cancer, or ebola.

I suspect your god doesn't have any knowledge beyond your own, much less the knowledge of the all the humans on this planet. Which would mean he is just a figment of your imagination.

Then you should probably spend your time doing something more productive than conversing with me. I'll do the same.

---

I think that you are taking standards which apply to things we can scientifically test for and applying them to things which we can't scientifically test for. You're discounting that any number of things about the universe could be true simply because we aren't currently able to measure them, which is a fine skeptical analysis, but lacking as a philosophical analysis and is the reason philosophy exists in the first place. There is no reason to dicount one form of evidence simply because another form is better. I would argue that THIS places limits on our ability to examine what is and isn't true.

Defining god as "something we can't scientifically test for" is special pleading to begin with. Any insane notion could be true, but the question here is establishing that it is true and we won't lower the standard of proof where that is concerned. And having a more reliable method of verification is a very good reason discount one that isn't reliable.

I've already responded to your points in other comments. If you have nothing further it would appear we are at an impasse.

---

I think that you are taking standards which apply to things we can scientifically test for and applying them to things which we can't scientifically test for. You're discounting that any number of things about the universe could be true simply because we aren't currently able to measure them, which is a fine skeptical analysis, but lacking as a philosophical analysis and is the reason philosophy exists in the first place. There is no reason to dicount one form of evidence simply because another form is better. I would argue that THIS places limits on our ability to examine what is and isn't true.

Defining god as "something we can't scientifically test for" is special pleading to begin with. Any insane notion could be true, but the question here is establishing that it is true and we won't lower the standard of proof where that is concerned. And having a more reliable method of verification is a very good reason discount one that isn't reliable.

I have specifically asked several times how one would go about testing for the existence of God scientifically and have received no answer. If that's your standard of proof that's your prerogative. It is not shared by me or most people.

---

This is nothing but your intuition on healthy social conduct. You have already stated that personal intuition is not a reliable indicator of reality, therefore I will apply your own standard to this statement and discount it as false and irrelevant on it's face.

Simply because you have nothing but assertion and intuition to ground your vain philosophies in does not implicate anyone else in such laziness but yourself. 10+ pages of rebuttals to your absurd suggestion that evidence for God exists on account of a person's feelings or uniformed conclusions about the conditions of causation in immediate experience is sufficient for me to point out that your insistence to the contrary is either dishonest or delusional, or you're simply not sophisticated enough to formulate an affirmation of your claims. That you thought I was speaking about "healthy social conduct" only serves to illuminate your dissonance from the conversation you initiated. In fact, I'm quite enjoying your sheer lack of cogency while others take to it like sport.

You have serious trouble not letting others have the last word, even when you are forced to repeat your previous assertions ad naseum. This is indicative of poor social skills. Feel free to leave another comment without reiterating points you've previously made, and I'll be more than happy to stop pointing out your personal flaws in a public forum.

---

Groups of people all around the world report instances of miracles all the time.

They also once reported that the world was flat. Unfortunately, reality is not an issue of the consensus of superstitious people.

Then why would you give weight to their testimony as evidence in your previous statement?