(October 26, 2009 at 6:37 am)solarwave Wrote:It's not bias, it's true. Hallucination there is evidence of the existence of, other explanations there is evidence of the existence/possibility of too. So yes, of course hallucination is more likely. We at least have evidence that hallucination happens, so it's of course more likely to be evidence of that than of "God" which - as far as I know - there's no evidence of whatsoever.EvF Wrote:...let's put it this way, it's more likely that the both of you are hallucinating. Or even that the entire human race is, than it is that prayer works - and especially, if there's a "God" attached to it, without explanation.You cant see the bias there?
Quote:Are you really as open minded and rational as many atheist claim? Some here are. I think I have finally got it that evidence isn't enough.
Evidence is enough. Of course - it's paramount. The problem is 1. It isn't evidence. 2. Other alternatives are more likely. 3. If I can't think of any evidence that I will accept, that doesn't mean I'll accept without evidence. I'm not saying God is impossible, certainly not - I'm an agnostic atheist - but I am not going to believe without evidence regardless of if I can think of any or not.
Requiring evidence to believe and knowing what evidence it would take are two different things.
EvF