(January 9, 2015 at 4:17 pm)robvalue Wrote: No, wait, wait. OK I didn't realize you were presenting that as a God claim.I've done that already as well.
If you want to use God in a claim, you have to first define god.
Quote:And weYou should stop saying "we" when you mean "I."
Quote:need a way to test the claim. How else can you find out if it is true?First, what do you mean by "true"? People keep saying that no one's asking for 100% proof, but that's what "true" implies to me.
Second, I gave a way that the claim can be considered. A coworker said he'd heard enough of that sort of claim that he believed it to be more than coincidence. As I had a rule not to look at the clock but did so in this instance, it seemed to me that the likelihood of the events being unrelated was too small to accept that as an explanation.
You don't have to accept those judgments, but neither is it your place to tell tell others what their standards of evidence must be.