Evidence God Exists: Part II

[tavarish]

I don't agree with a few of your points.

There is no such thing as personal evidence.

Sure there is. Subjective evidence exists as a facet or your perception - this encompasses rationale that does not necessarily apply to another's point of view or belief.

I can believe that I've seen aliens, and have evidence that is defined by my own memories and recollections. Based on my standard of evidence, this is enough for me to believe that was I experienced was genuine, but may not be enough to convince someone else, as anecdotal evidence isn't admissible as objective.

The nature of evidence is that something is proven by means of verifiable & falsifiable testing and found to be true.

Not necessarily.

here's a definition of evidence by princeton:

your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=evidence

What you’re talking about is personal experience!

Which can be a form of subjective evidence for something. Also, it's better not to link to uncited Wikipedia pages.

Thank goodness, it isn’t regarded as evidence for the existence of something. Personal experience is completely subjective concept and relies on something as fallible as the human mind & psyche.

That doesn't mean subjective experiences can't lead to subjective conclusions regarding the existence of something.

I often think that when people say they have had some “personal experience”, that they are being authentic about it. You have probably made up your mind about the existence of God, and it is unlikely that any argument will sway you.

That's been apparent for some time now.

The existence of God is a scientific hypothesis, and should be dealt with in scientific method – namely, science, logic & reason.

I understand Dawkins' point of view, but it is not limited to a scientific hypothesis, although you can treat it as such. Theists can just simply say he resides outside of the material, and the entire argument turns to crap. There are scientific elements, but it isn't only a question science has to or can answer.

Personal experience is not valid (and certainly needs to be corroborated to be taken seriously in a court room).

Agreed. Anecdotal evidence is not objective evidence without scrutiny and verification.

Carl Sagan once said “ … extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". Unfortunately, personal experiences (no matter how genuine they seemed to you) don’t satisfy that benchmark.

Sure they do - just ask the people that experienced them. They're convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt.

This is a little presumptuous on your part. You have no idea who I am, or how much I have read on theology, science, philosophy etc … but I’m curious what that experience was that confirmed the existence of God.

I made a thread with this very topic. All I got was wishywashy bullshit ending with two vague conclusions:

1. Nothing convinced them.
2. Everything convinced them.

And somehow they tied 1 and 2 together.

You could, for instance, see an apple fail to fall the ground when thrown. That could count as personal evidence if only you witnessed it. But does that prove God exists? It only ‘proves’ that there *might* have been a disturbance in the natural order of the universe.

It still counts as personal evidence of something occurring from your perspective. Whatever you tie it to is irrelevant, as your conclusion is solely dependent on the value you assign to the evidence.