On the nature of evidence.

[Mudhammam]

You have explicitly discounted any form of evidence less impressive than God performing an Old Testament miracle on your behalf. If that's your standard, own it.

It's not my job to define your conception of God. I only assumed that the Old Testament deity is close enough to the one you're proposing we can discover through self-affirmation (in other words, selective attention to "signs" we interpret as evidence due to our prior acceptance of such a pathetic standard).

But doing so would prevent any supernatural being from making contact with you through any evidence which doesn't meet this standard. If that's your standard, fine, but you are objectively discounted certain forms of evidence. Whether or not that is wise is your own decision to make. I'm simply stating the proposition.

Exactly. Personal testimonies of faeries, demons, ghosts, aliens, and Big Foot also fail to meet my standard--presumably you also believe in those granted your weak qualification for evidence. If you want to posit the wisdom of such a strategy that struggles to properly determine the validity of the above propositions, that is, truth from error, reality from illusion, then I'll assume you know next to nothing about the last five centuries, or the dark ages that preceded them.

[trmof]

Open up the Bible to just about any chapter in the Old Testament. Any one of these miracles would be sufficient for me.

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.
[/quote]

This is exactly my point. If no evidence would be enough to convince you of a proposition, any proposition, then your opinion on the subject is unimportant and you should find better things to talk about.

[Mudhammam]

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.

This is exactly my point. If no evidence would be enough to convince you of a proposition, any proposition, then your opinion on the subject is unimportant and you should find better things to talk about.

If theists can offer no evidence except for appeal to their "feels," why don't they just say so? I'm sure if would save future generations a lot of unnecessary confusion and duress.

[trmof]

You have explicitly discounted any form of evidence less impressive than God performing an Old Testament miracle on your behalf. If that's your standard, own it.

It's not my job to define your conception of God. I only assumed that the Old Testament deity is close enough to the one you're proposing we can discover through self-affirmation (in other words, selective attention to "signs" we interpret as evidence due to our prior acceptance of such a pathetic standard).

But doing so would prevent any supernatural being from making contact with you through any evidence which doesn't meet this standard. If that's your standard, fine, but you are objectively discounted certain forms of evidence. Whether or not that is wise is your own decision to make. I'm simply stating the proposition.

Exactly. Personal testimonies of faeries, demons, ghosts, aliens, and Big Foot also fail to meet my standard--presumably you also believe in those granted your weak qualification for evidence. If you want to posit the wisdom of such a strategy that struggles to properly determine the validity of the above propositions, that is, truth from error, reality from illusion, then I'll assume you know next to nothing about the last five centuries, or the dark ages that preceded them.

The reality of those or any other propositions has no bearing on whether any other proposition is true, regardless of it's nature. If you choose to act as if they do, you are making an intuitive inference which is in itself non falsifiable. If you choose to treat certain kinds of inferences as more logically valid than others, feel free. It should not surprise you that other people find your intuition lacking, just as you find theirs lacking.

[Aoi Magi]

Sorry to disappoint you Chad but we ARE willing to believe provided we find actual credible evidence.

And we've already had these discussions many times, read these if you are interested:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-28668.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-28953.html

[Chas]

Open up the Bible to just about any chapter in the Old Testament. Any one of these miracles would be sufficient for me.

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.

Seriously, Chad, you are obnoxious. Evidence is what convinces a skeptic, you just have never presented any.

[Mudhammam]

The reality of those or any other propositions has no bearing on whether any other proposition is true, regardless of it's nature. If you choose to act as if they do, you are making an intuitive inference which is in itself non falsifiable. If you choose to treat certain kinds of inferences as more logically valid than others, feel free. It should not surprise you that other people find your intuition lacking, just as you find theirs lacking.

Thanks for clarifying my objection to your measly standard of evidence regarding the proposition at hand. You basically conceded my point that a determination of the causes of certain experiences demands a far moral critical analysis than that which you proposed: a) believe in god. b) see if you find confirmation. Of course you will, in the same way that a mind who wants to believe in extraterrestrials is more likely to encounter a UFO that is perceived as confirmation of his or her prior beliefs or desires.

[trmof]

---

---

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.

You've just described every form of non-scientific data available to man. If that's your personal standard, that's fine. It should not come as any surprise to you that other people don't agree with you, and it is certainly not an excuse for poor social skills on your part.

[Cyberman]

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.

How do we remove ambiguity and isolate the actual phenomena at work?

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.

Of course not, but it does make knowledge statements about its nature and abilities redundant. How can you know anything about this god, including whether it's even there at all?

[Aoi Magi]

non-scientific data? WTF?

And that's NOT my standard, that's what you are asking us to set our standards as.