standard of evidence

[Rational AKD]

Rational AKD

Here's the thing. There's nothing observable which can be said to be God, unique to the things that are not-God. Even people who SAY they've seen God, no matter how respected, are talking about beams of light, burning bushes, men walking on water, people claiming to be healed, seemingly improbable coincidental events (I'm always on that ferry, but I called in sick once in my life and that's when the ferry sank), or just the good ol' creepy crawlies.

If someone told me about ice, and I'd never seen it, I'd ask what it was. They'd say it's a very cold white substance. Okay, that's an actual experience. Now, I have to question their INTERPRETATION of their experiences. If they said the white stuff was magical monkey pooh, I'd want to know why it was necessary to come to that conclusion. If they told me it fell from rainclouds on very cold days, and that they didn't really know what it was, but it was very cold to the touch-- okay, that sounds plausible, because they aren't interpreting their experiences by making stuff up.

So what evidence do you have?
Feelings of inspiration? Okay, you have evidence that people can feel inspired. If you INTERPRET that as the presence of God, you're making stuff up.
Burning bush? Okay, you have evidence that bushes can burn (not really a big revelation).
Voice coming from burning bush? Okay, you have evidence that people sometimes hear things that aren't really there. But we know about hallucinations, and about how intense heat and dehydration can cause them.
Man walking on water? Did anyone jump in there and check if there was a sand bar, or a sunken log or something, just under the surface?

In all these cases, the evidence is totally plausible, but the conclusion that they serve as evidence of God is non sequitur.


So what evidence do you have that God exists, which can ONLY be attributed to God? What experiences have you or other Christians had that cannot be attributed to pagans, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, or the hippie in the hemp shirt with the magic mushrooms in his pocket (who is probably more like Jesus than anyone else you know)?

wow, a lengthy response that still dodges the 2 main questions. ok, i'll tackle a few of your claims.

There's nothing observable which can be said to be God, unique to the things that are not-God.

that is not a prerequisite. there's also no way to observe a black hole, you can only observe gravitational effects and draw the conclusion that it's a black hole.

If they said the white stuff was magical monkey pooh, I'd want to know why it was necessary to come to that conclusion.

that is a terrible representation of a parody to an argument I would use. to show God exists, I would use either inductive or deductive reasoning, not come up with a random explanation for an observation.

If they told me it fell from rainclouds on very cold days, and that they didn't really know what it was, but it was very cold to the touch-- okay, that sounds plausible because they aren't interpreting their experiences by making stuff up.

so you're saying something is plausible if they don't add their personal interpretation to what they see? I wonder if you really think that...

Voice coming from burning bush? Okay, you have evidence that people sometimes hear things that aren't really there.

just as I thought, observations aren't always plausible. if someone claims to have observed something and you don't like the implications you can simply claim it as a hallucination. you can't even keep your explanation consistent.

Burning bush? Okay, you have evidence that bushes can burn (not really a big revelation).

funny thing is they actually describe it as a burning bush that is not being consumed. that would be a little more like a revelation, though you conveniently left that bit out for your point.

In all these cases, the evidence is totally plausible, but the conclusion that they serve as evidence of God is non sequitur.

you know what's also true? I would not use a single one of these to show God exists. you're simply using straw mans and false parodies of arguments and generalizing that I would use them or something like them.

lastly, you don't seem to want to answer the questions I have. I have 2 simple questions. what kind of evidence is acceptable to show God exists, and how much evidence is adequate? it would be much appreciated if these questions were answered rather than dodged.