Seriously, anyone pretending to not know what would be a rational amount of evidence is either lying or just delusional. And then claiming that we haven't defined what rational proof would consist of... that's just being dishonest.
If you want to convince someone of anything, you need to show them evidence beyond them still having any rational skepticism. And the more fantastic the claim, the more fantastic the evidence needs to be. It's not hard to understand this, I'm sure they use this form of evidentiary belief on a daily basis.
If you want to convince someone of anything, you need to show them evidence beyond them still having any rational skepticism. And the more fantastic the claim, the more fantastic the evidence needs to be. It's not hard to understand this, I'm sure they use this form of evidentiary belief on a daily basis.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.