RE: Evidence for god? Convince me! [CHALLENGE]
March 16, 2014 at 11:13 am
(This post was last modified: March 16, 2014 at 11:51 am by MindForgedManacle.)
There is a difference between "There is no evidence for God" and "There is no good evidence for God". The former is false, the latter is true (from my perspective).
To be evidence for something is merely to say that "X is more likely true given the existence of information Y, than if Y had not existed" (this is really easy to demonstrate). Hence, the existence of the Bible, of Christian theists and arguments for God's existence make his existence more likely than it would have been if those things were not existing. However, it doesn't mean that God's existence is more likely than not, because I don't think those things are good evidence, which is - as Alex noted - the right question to ask. Likewise, I think it's obvious that there can be
some kinds of evidence that is private to those who experience things others haven't. If you are framed for a crime that you didn't dpo, and yet there is fabricated evidence indicating (to others) that you almost certainly did commit the crime, is that going to overturn your recollection of definitely not having committed the crime? Of course not, and I would tend to see claimed experiences of various divine beings that way. It's useless as far as arguments go because it was a privste experience for which further evidence is not guaranteed in the slightest, yet it is evidence to they who experienced it.
To be evidence for something is merely to say that "X is more likely true given the existence of information Y, than if Y had not existed" (this is really easy to demonstrate). Hence, the existence of the Bible, of Christian theists and arguments for God's existence make his existence more likely than it would have been if those things were not existing. However, it doesn't mean that God's existence is more likely than not, because I don't think those things are good evidence, which is - as Alex noted - the right question to ask. Likewise, I think it's obvious that there can be
some kinds of evidence that is private to those who experience things others haven't. If you are framed for a crime that you didn't dpo, and yet there is fabricated evidence indicating (to others) that you almost certainly did commit the crime, is that going to overturn your recollection of definitely not having committed the crime? Of course not, and I would tend to see claimed experiences of various divine beings that way. It's useless as far as arguments go because it was a privste experience for which further evidence is not guaranteed in the slightest, yet it is evidence to they who experienced it.
