Many times, it is hard to tell what would be good evidence for a claim.
For example, before the microscope was invented, how would people know what would be good evidence to explain infectious diseases?
If evidence is discovered for the existence of a god, it should be something as solid as the evidence that bacteria and viruses cause infectious diseases. Anything else sounds like wishful thinking to me.
If not, then as others have stated, anything that qualifies as a god should know what would convince me of his/her/its/their existence. And should be able to communicate it with me.
For example, before the microscope was invented, how would people know what would be good evidence to explain infectious diseases?
If evidence is discovered for the existence of a god, it should be something as solid as the evidence that bacteria and viruses cause infectious diseases. Anything else sounds like wishful thinking to me.
If not, then as others have stated, anything that qualifies as a god should know what would convince me of his/her/its/their existence. And should be able to communicate it with me.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
