Evidence for Believing

[Deesse23]

When i am talking about "this is not evidence" then i mean (of course) evidence for god, the original proposition (see thread title). I like to stick to topics and not derail threads into (pseudo) philosophical navel gazing.

Of course personal evidence is evidence, for a personal experience possibly. Not however for the existence for a god. And still it would be weak, because how should i be able to determine if you really had an experience and arent lying?

If we define evidence as "anything which gives added credence to a proposition." ...

I have evidence that i am going to win the lottery next week. Its because i woke up today at exactly 06:00. Thats never happened to me. Its unique to my life.
I give the notion that i will win the lottery next week a shitload more credence now, after having woken up at exactly 06:00
Looks like anything could be evidence for everything. Cool.

Also I think that an appeal to numbers constitutes evidence --- though not proof.

Evidence for what? For the original proposition? Why? Why and how would the appeal to "evidence" (aka numbers) be considered fallacious thinking?

If someone has a religious experience, it is not unreasonable for that person to feel that the possibility of the existence of God is more likely to be true than he did before.

If someone has a delusion about being Napoleon, it is not unreasonable for that person to feel that the possibility of being Napoleon is more likely to be true than he did before. Do you think thats a good standard for determining what is reasonable? Do you think everyone should be entitled to determine whats reasonable by himself (for example to the standard given by Lek), or do you think we should find a (somewhat) common ground for determining whats considered to be reasonable? Do you think a thought process which does not include cross checking whats going on in your mind with the external world (no solipism BS please, or this conversation is over before it even began) should be considered being reasonable?

Since Lek (and you) equivocates experience with evidence. How good an evidence for the proposition of actually being Napoleon is an experience of being Napoleon ?

If he's honest he has to accept that he may be deluded

Did Lek do that, ever? ...or did he create this very topic because he ab-so-fucking-lutely refuses to accept even the possibility of being deluded (not even talking about probability)?

You might say I'm suffering from a delusion, but I have no other history of delusions and billions of others who have no history of delusions also believe in God.

No theologian or religious apologist has ever explained why "god" ends the regress.

Something......something metaphysics? Maybe?