On the nature of evidence.

[trmof]

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 God 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.

---

On that note, my point becomes: If God did in fact exist and the ways I've described were the only way he were willing to communicate with you at the moment for reasons he can't currently explain to you, then your standard of evidence would tie his hands in terms of reaching out and making contact with you.

And we're none the worse off for it. On the other hand, if the requirements for what can be correctly recognized as evidence are bastardized to the point of personal credulity, for which you allow, then virtually all claims become justifiable as truths and man remains ignorant of true causes.

Then we can kindly agree to disagree on that. Thanks for your opinions.