On the nature of evidence.

[trmof]

If you're not willing to answer my questions, why should I answer yours?

You claim there is a being with certain characteristics. Show your evidence.

That's the way it works. We don't ask what evidence people need, we present it and it is evaluated.

Put up or shut up.

I've made no such claim. I haven't brought up my personal beliefs without being asked and I've also not tried to prove my beliefs to anyone, nor do I believe I could. I've made a statement about the philosophical nature of "evidence" and our individual standards for evaluating it, and why I think it's wise to question and discuss such things. If you would like to respond to that, please read the topic post.

---

No, I'm simply proposing that if such a God existed, your standard of evidence would prevent him from letting you know. Your standard of evidence for non falsifiable propositions is the same as your standard for falsifiable propositions. That's fine, but philosophy is all about exploring non falsifiable propositions through intuition, personal experience and logic. That's why I chose to post this under philosophy. I would propose that your standard of evidence prevents you from even discussing philosophical matters in the first place.

I am proposing that if your God didn't exist, your standard of evidence would still cause you to build an entire world view upon the proposition that he does. So your standard of evidence is good for, when averaged over all it is likely to produce, nothing.

No, philosophy is not "all about" exploring proposition through intuition and personal experience and logic. Philosophy is partially about exploring propositions, and it is not beyond philosophy to try dead ends. The fact that it tried a dead end does not mean the end is thus made live.

It also doesn't mean the dead end is proven false. It means you've decided to stop examining it further.

Unfortunately my God regularly intervenes in my life to enrich and protect me, so I can say from experience that you are wrong. Whether you believe that or not has never been of any consequence to me, nor is that the subject of the thread.

---

This is exactly my point. If no evidence would be enough to convince you of a proposition, any proposition, then your opinion on the subject is unimportant and you should find better things to talk about.

If theists can offer no evidence except for appeal to their "feels," why don't they just say so? I'm sure if would save future generations a lot of unnecessary confusion and duress.

I'm explicitly saying so right now. You're right, they should probably keep their mouths shut and leave the serious debating to people like you and me who are capable of having a meaningful discussion about philosophy.