Evidence for Believing

[Belacqua]

No one who wasn’t born yesterday and who has any sincere interest in reality can give a rat’s ass about theology when the question is about what constitutes reality.

That's fine. There's no reason for you to study theology. 

Unless you're going to challenge theological ideas, in which case you might look as if you haven't studied theology.

---

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.

You'd have to justify the link between waking up at 6 and winning the lottery. Most likely there is none, in which case it isn't reasonable evidence. 

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?

I already gave an example, about the restaurant. If you asked 100 people what is the best restaurant in town, and they gave you consistent answers, and then you said, "I have no evidence at all for what is the best restaurant in town," that would be silly. 

Here's another example:

Suppose one million people said their iPhones gave them a headache. It's possible this is a mass delusion. But I think it's sufficient evidence (not proof) to justify further investigation. 

If the people who make iPhones said, "ha, numbers aren't evidence, so there's no need to look into this," that would be seen as evasion. 

If you reject the testimony of a million Christians about hearing God's voice, but accept as evidence (not proof) the statements of a million phone users, it shows that you are evaluating evidence on something other than numbers. 

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? 

This is why evidence isn't proof. We need additional tests to confirm or deny evidence. 

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)?

I don't know anything about Lek. I don't read his posts carefully. 

Lots of people seem to find it hard to say "I may be wrong."

---

I actually agree, personal (and even anecdotal) evidence is evidence. It is just probably among the worst types of evidence.

Thank you. Yes, I agree that people are so easily fooled that it's not very reliable evidence. 

On the other hand, there are times when it's believable. A dozen of my neighbors have reported seeing a wild boar recently. Apparently it's come down from the mountain to look for food. I haven't seen it, but a dozen reports constitute good evidence, I think.

So, lets say that in 150 years from now, the vast majority of humanity does not believe in any gods. Will that be convincing evidence that gods don't exit?

Evidence, but not proof. 

And if billions of other  people say they have personal experiences, different from the personal experiences, with different gods, than the billion people you mention, is that evidence that their god(s) exist?

Evidence, but not proof.

It looks to me that people have certain kinds of experiences which they interpret according to their local beliefs. So one person might attribute an experience to Jesus, and one to Shiva, or whatever. Others attribute it to brain chemicals. To settle the matter we'd need further investigation, and there is always the possibility that it can't be settled. 

Do you really need it explained to you why?
Seriously...

I gave the restaurant example purely as a case in which numbers make the evidence more persuasive. 

If you feel it doesn't do that, please explain why.

---

Human beings have a major superiority complex. They imagine themselves important. Surely then, if humans are so fucking special, then they must have a purpose. That purpose must have been drawn out by the ultimate power in existence. Therefore god did it.

One frequent example of humans' superiority complex I see is the idea that if there were a God it would behave in a way that I approve of and understand. 

As if an omnipotent and omniscient power would just naturally have the same ideas I do.....