(December 25, 2015 at 8:30 pm)Delicate Wrote:(December 25, 2015 at 5:32 pm)Sal Wrote: I'm not Simon Moon, but I'll answer for myself what I find to be valid evidence for god(s).
Verifiable, repeatable & falsifiable evidence that can be verified by outside sources, repeated under controlled conditions and is able to be falsified.
The first 2 requirements - verifiable and repeatable - refers to simple conditions for phenomena or basic logic. The 3rd is the interesting one; falsifiable means that there should be an experiment/observation that would disprove the evidence, and when that is met, would be a condition under which your evidence could be dismissed or verified.
---
EDIT: Also, I've yet to find any theist, (or psychic, diviner, etc. for that matter) to produce any amount of the supernatural and that failed these 3 criteria.
Thanks. This is a genuinely substantive response
Or maybe, it is a lack you actually paying attention to the vast majority of atheists here telling you the same thing on almost everyone of your threads.
Or a reading comprehension problem on your part.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
