RE: standard of evidence
October 2, 2013 at 9:56 am
(This post was last modified: October 2, 2013 at 10:02 am by Rational AKD.)
(October 2, 2013 at 9:46 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Like I said to Vinny on another thread, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That works well enough to send someone to prison for the rest of their life, so it should be good enough to establish a religion as absolutely true. Basically I need to be convinced that something is real before I believe in it, and invoking magical properties is not the way to do it. I need tangible, incontrovertible evidence to show that a god exists before I'll believe in it. Just showing me words in an old book is not going to do it.
you don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt for everything, so why would you for God? do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that reality is not an illusion? more importantly, do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that God doesn't exist? if not then why do you cherry pick the negating proposition while denying the proposition?
(October 2, 2013 at 9:50 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: The major difference is that it would be possible to show him some ice, since we all know that ice exists. For some reason it seems impossible for Christians to show nonbelievers their god. If someone was skeptical of ice existing, it would be possible to procure some just to show him. However, when it comes to gods, instead of procuring this god in reality special magical properties are always invoked to explain why nobody can see, feel, taste, smell, or detect the existence of this god in any way.
there is also no way to show someone a quark, but does that mean we shouldn't believe in them?
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
-Galileo
