Evidence God Exists: Part II

[rjh4 is back]

Plausible - Explanations that involve the natural world.

Implausible - Explanations that involve things outside the natural world.

Interesting. You seem to have redefined the word "plausible" to something different than standard dictionary meanings for the word. None of the definitions I saw on dictionary.com said anything about the natural world. Can you provide any other support for reasonably taking this as your definition other than that is how you define things? Without such support, it appears to me you are just redefining the word so that it makes your position sound good (which, of course, is your right to do but why should anyone take you seriously if that is what your are doing?)

"God" is outside the natural world. Plus, there is no evidence to support the existence of this being.

You seem to be loose with your words. Example, you say "there is no evidence to support the existence of" God. I would love to see you try to support that position at least as it is to be taken at face value. Have you seen all the evidence that exists? How can you be sure there is no evidence that you have not seen that supports the existence of God? So if you really meant to say this, I would love to hear the answer to these questions. Otherwise, I will assume you meant something more along the lines of "I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that God exists."

---

When something is plausible, it is most often testable and repeatable and is based on solid evidence.

What is the basis for this? It certainly does not rely on any definition of the word that I have seen. You also seem to be redefining the meaning of the word "plausible".