Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[KevinM1]

Try again, slick.  Evidence is derived from the word 'evident'.  Evidence is only evidence if it is evident to others.  God tapping Jenny on the shoulder and saying "Hi" isn't evidence unless it's observed by someone else.  And, even then, that's only evidence of someone/thing interacting with her, not of your god.  That requires much more evidence, evidence which must eliminate other possibilities from being the most likely explanation.

As I said, if Jenny were to be taken up into heaven by Jesus for a three-hour tour, you would not believe anything she said upon her return.

You wouldn't read her book, and you wouldn't go to see the movie.

And that's supposed to be an indictment of myself and other atheists how?

Eyewitness testimony is the weakest form of evidence there is.  Not only do we forget things, get confused about things, and otherwise have faulty memories, we can 'remember' things that didn't actually happen:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/01/p...committed/

Do you begin to understand why we put zero stock into eyewitness testimony?  It's utterly unreliable.  It's why legal professionals use it to corroborate actual evidence rather than relying solely on it.  By itself, it just creates a narrative.  Narratives aren't proof of anything.

In other words, Jenny's hypothetical experience may indeed be valid, but unless she can produce actual evidence of it, evidence that can't be more easily explained by something else (Occam's Razor is a bitch, innit?), her claims of the divine are meaningless.