On the nature of evidence.

[trmof]

---

---

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.

Sorry, but at this point, he is your imaginary buddy, so I can't ask him anything. Plus if I do ask, I have no way of determining what happens next (if), is just in my head or not. Since you are the one claiming a direct line to him, you are in a much better position to ask him things.

If he is an omnipotent being, and has interfered with nature many times, and wants us to believe in him, then proving his existence to us should be trivial for him. Heck he could just beam the knowledge to everyone and be done with it. He is supposedly communicating with millions of believers already (while also giving them misleading information).

You have no way of determining whether EVERTHYING is happening in your head or not. It doesn't prevent you from doing so with regularity.

Also, the God of the Bible never claims to be omnipotent, and he often specifically puts some limits on himself about interfering with free will. The god you are describing is not the one you are asking me to talk to.

As a side note I ask him things all the time and he answers with regularity. It is not my responsibility to be a go-between between him and you.

---

I think that you are taking standards which apply to things we can scientifically test for and applying them to things which we can't scientifically test for. You're discounting that any number of things about the universe could be true simply because we aren't currently able to measure them, which is a fine skeptical analysis, but lacking as a philosophical analysis and is the reason philosophy exists in the first place. There is no reason to dicount one form of evidence simply because another form is better. I would argue that THIS places limits on our ability to examine what is and isn't true.

Wrong. I discounted nothing except for your philosophically and scientifically bankrupt notion of presupposing superfluous causes on account of utter ignorance.

You have explicitly discounted any form of evidence less impressive than God performing an Old Testament miracle on your behalf. If that's your standard, own it. But doing so would prevent any supernatural being from making contact with you through any evidence which doesn't meet this standard. If that's your standard, fine, but you are objectively discounted certain forms of evidence. Whether or not that is wise is your own decision to make. I'm simply stating the proposition