On the nature of evidence.

[Chas]

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.

You described a being with certain characteristics, then straw-manned an argument about how others would react.

Your question is not well-considered or well-formed. Evidence is verifiable.

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.

Please present evidence of God's intervention in your life. Without that, your assertion is simply not credible.