On the nature of evidence.

[Aoi Magi]

@trmof It seems you completely overlooked or misunderstood what I tried telling you earlier.
- An unverifiable circumstance cannot be considered "evidence" if it can be interpreted as anything or everything, and we cannot assume it to be God when far more understandable naturalistic explanations are present.
- Furthermore evidence has to be presentable and verifiable by anybody who wishes to do so. Personal evidence/experience, as you said yourself, cannot be proven so it is pointless.


You constantly claimed the we are setting the standards too high, that may be so for your god concept, but we set the standards based on the definition of god that we have been presented with. So as you've been asked many times, define the standards, and what your god can and cannot do. If his capabilities are limited to only what YOU can do, then there's no reason to suppose he has any existence outside of your mind. If he can do something more, define that and we can move on to verify that.

You also claimed he is able to talk to you, but have constantly failed to prove that is the case, as you haven't shown any bit of supernatural wisdom in the slightest. Also is talking in a person's head the only quality he has? Because that power is attributed to any and all supernatural forces, including the devil and all of the other pagan gods, and science has shown it to be just a mental disorder in multitudes of cases presented before it.