RE: On the nature of evidence.
October 25, 2014 at 10:27 pm
(This post was last modified: October 25, 2014 at 10:28 pm by trmof.)
(October 25, 2014 at 9:27 pm)Stimbo Wrote:(October 25, 2014 at 8:11 pm)trmof Wrote: The Bible does not call God omnipotent. The God you are describing is not the God I worship, so your opinions about this particular potential form of God are not something I can address.
Which is exactly why I've been asking you to define the parameters of your god, so we can avoid these kinds of misunderstandings. You mention the bible, which already isn't a promising sign.
My previous definition made no assumption of omnipotence, merely power to influence events to some superhuman degree. Feel include that to the definition now. As for, "to some superhuman degree," I could spend all day defining this for myself, but the point of the post is really to get YOUR opinion on what you think would be the subtlest possible level of this sort of influence which would make you reconsider whether your current conception of God is true or not.
In other words, what is your bare minimum for the miraculous? I've yet to hear from someone who's personal burden of proof is as low as or lower than mine, which is perfectly fine. That is, however, the reason why I feel no need to share my personal testimony of strange occurrences, as it would be fruitless if no one would care about it anyway.