(March 6, 2018 at 8:48 am)robvalue Wrote: Anything can be presented as "evidence". But it's only useful if it is convincing. If it only convinces the person presenting it and no one else, they may as well not bother even mentioning it. No one needs permission or validation to believe what they already believe.
By your own logic, the tens of millions of adults that become Christians each year would suggest your general view is wrong. They were presented with "evidence". They were convinced. Process repeats.
Quote:Personally, I want to base my beliefs on evidence that I think would be convincing to a rational, uninvested third party. That means that they should be able to investigate the evidence and come to the same conclusion as me, without having to take my word for anything. If I don't have this, then I will question why I believe the thing in the first place.
PS: there can't even be any evidence for "God" until it's defined in such a way that its existence if falsifiable. It's just people rationalizing what they believe.
This is just straight up wrong. There is not any rational argument you could make that supports that evidence for God needs to be falsifiable. The principle of falsification is a scientific concept that was only ever meant to apply to scientific inquiries. It does not apply to any of the other vast stretches of human knowledge like: numbers and math, logic, ethics, aesthetics, human consciousness, scientific laws, and metaphysical truths. Ironically, the concept of falsification is itself not falsifiable. Since science cannot, by definition, even comment on the possibility of the supernatural, a scientific principle like falsificationism is so far off the mark as to be silly.
