On the nature of evidence.

[bennyboy]

So the thread is about the nature of evidence, and you come back with how God is a pretty nice guy and how we are going to meet him? Really?

Yes, that is an attempt to say something nice to someone I am clearly not going to convince and would like to leave with a kind word. What is your specific problem with that?

My problem is that you should be able to anticipate that talking about Sky Daddy to a confirmed atheist will be received about as warmly as you kindly telling him his daughter is a hot piece of ass.

But let's get back to evidence. This thread is about what evidence a non-Christian would accept for the existence of God. But that's condescending-- it implies that the Christian already has good reason to believe in God, and the atheist doesn't "get" it-- a proverbial doubting Thomas. The real question is this-- what evidence do YOU have that has caused you to believe that God is real, rather than a cultural fiction fed to you by your parents or peers? Why should anyone outside your culture adopt your ideas about reality?

Let's stop goofing around with the burden of proof. Most of the atheists here are atheists simply because they feel there's no compelling reason to hold to, and act on, a God idea. If you want them to change their mind, then go ahead and give them a good reason. But don't be surprised if you have to get in line-- the hindus, buddhists, muslims, Zoroastrians, Satanists, pagans, and dog-talking serial killers also have their own fantasies that they want others to adopt. And they're all saying the same thing: "You can't PROVE that reality is what it seems to be, so Krshna, Gotama, Zoroaster, Beelzebub, Zeus, Rover."