On the nature of evidence.

[trmof]

As for my standards of evidence, I have received numerous physical signs from God that he both listens to me and wants me to behave in certain ways, so I have no further requirement for evidence.

If he listens to you, please ask him
- Why did he put contradictory, immoral instructions in the only book which is supposed to describe him?
- Why does he appear differently to every believer, and at times with totally contradictory appearances?

I would suggest that you ask him those questions directly. If he doesn't answer then there are three possible explanations: Either he isn't there; He is there but he isn't interested in talking to you for some reason; or He's there but your personal prejudices against certain types of ideas and information, for example conversational hints that can't be stated outright, are making you unable to see read and respond to his overtures. All three of those propositions are non falsifiable from a scientific perspective, and though you may consider one more likely than the others, this says absolutely nothing about which one is factual. That's why this post is labeled under philosophy.

---

They aren't leading questions, they are simply questions. I never claimed to have any beliefs whatsoever; I'm interested in yours, which you have still failed to state. As this is a polite conversation and not a college debate, there are no winning and losing conditions.

As for my standards of evidence, I have received numerous physical signs from God that he both listens to me and wants me to behave in certain ways, so I have no further requirement for evidence.

What is the standard of evidence you used to evaluate these signs such that you are satisfied not only to regard them them as signs, but signs form a particular diety amongst the infinite number conceivable deities, which in turn is a infinitesimal subset of conceivable forces and entities any all kind that can be imaged to be able to generate these signs?

My standard of evidence is intuition and common sense, but that means nothing outside of my own head. The question that follows from that, and the original question really, is "What form would intuitive evidence have to take in your own life in order for it to be enough evidence to convince you that a superhuman entity was trying to make contact with you, and how would you distinguish between that evidence and mental illness?

---

it might be unreasonable to ask God for something so major that he has to make the laws of physics jump through hoops. He has to take into account the butterfly effect this would have on everything in your immediate vicinity and beyond.

So your 'god' is so inept that he couldn't prevent such effects?

Interesting 'god' you have there.

Sounds like a real putz.

You are also unable to prevent such effects. Would this also make you a putz?