On the nature of evidence.

[Aoi Magi]

It IS your responsibility to provide supporting evidence when you make a claim that you want others to acknowledge.

[Cyberman]

How about instead of playing "Guess My God", you actually set out what this god is about? As I said, we can't examine the god since it's continually being defined as untestable. So let's see some statements about its nature, its abilities and whatever, and we can examine those.

On the other hand, a god that repeatedly fails the same basic reality test that even microbes are able to pass can be put to bed right now, along with this discussion.

[trmof]

It IS your responsibility to provide supporting evidence when you make a claim that you want others to acknowledge.

I'm not making a claim I want anybody to acknowledge. I'm proposing some interesting ideas about the philosophical nature of evidence and how different people approach it. I never brought up my religious beliefs until I was specifically asked about them, and I don't care if you acknowledge them or not

That being the case, is there something else regarding the topic you'd like to discuss? Because you seem more interested in making this about me personally and I'm not interested.

---

How about instead of playing "Guess My God", you actually set out what this god is about? As I said, we can't examine the god since it's continually being defined as untestable. So let's see some statements about its nature, its abilities and whatever, and we can examine those.

On the other hand, a god that repeatedly fails the same basic reality test that even microbes are able to pass can be put to bed right now, along with this discussion.

I already did that several posts back. I'm afraid you missed it.

[Aoi Magi]

philosophy involves a thing called logic, which is in direct opposition of your "proposition".

[trmof]

How about instead of playing "Guess My God", you actually set out what this god is about? As I said, we can't examine the god since it's continually being defined as untestable. So let's see some statements about its nature, its abilities and whatever, and we can examine those.

On the other hand, a god that repeatedly fails the same basic reality test that even microbes are able to pass can be put to bed right now, along with this discussion.

Please go back about half a page and you will find my response to your original questions.

---

philosophy involves a thing called logic, which is in direct opposition of your "proposition".

What do you perceive to be my proposition exactly.

[Cyberman]

What happens when we put those claims to the test? Are they even testable?

By the way, you don't need to repeat yourself on my account.

[Chas]

Let's not act like it's the atheists job to come up with a phenomenology for *your* pet fantasy.

You tell me - what evidence do you think would be compelling?

If you're not willing to answer my questions, why should I answer yours?

You claim there is a being with certain characteristics. Show your evidence.

That's the way it works. We don't ask what evidence people need, we present it and it is evaluated.

Put up or shut up.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Open up the Bible to just about any chapter in the Old Testament. Any one of these miracles would be sufficient for me.
[/quote]I'd be careful about that one. You might get turned into a pillar of salt.

To the OP, give it up. No evidence would suffice to convince 90% of the AF members.

[trmof]

What happens when we put those claims to the test? Are they even testable?

By the way, you don't need to repeat yourself on my account.

They are easily testable: Ask him to reveal himself to you in a humble manner and wait with some little patience for some form of experiential evidence that will move you personally.

It is admittedly not currently falsifiable, which is part of my original point. Multiverse theory is currently non falsifiable, though that may change in time. That doesn't prevent us from having interesting conversations about it.

[Aoi Magi]

---

philosophy involves a thing called logic, which is in direct opposition of your "proposition".

---

What do you perceive to be my proposition exactly.

Good question, one that you should be asking yourself.

Anyway, your proposal is for us to consider a circumstance as evidence for a particular thing where that circumstance can be interpreted as evidence for anything or nothing.