(July 24, 2013 at 5:47 am)Kim Wrote: Ok, that's the first eloquent response to my question. If there is no such evidence of which we can rely on to prove the existing of a supernatural being, why do we ask theists to provide us with evidence for their chosen deity? Doesn't that mean that regardless of whatever evidence is provided, none would ever suffice?
Sort of missing the point here. I'm not saying that no amount of evidence for a supernatural being would ever suffice. I'm saying that depending upon the nature of supernatural and the degree to which it contravenes the known laws of reality, what we call sufficient evidence would be be different. So when someone starts talking a supernatural being, the most obvious thing to do is ask what they mean by it and what evidence they are ready to provide. Its not my fault that they start by positing something that would negate the concept of evidence itself.
Its kind of like when someone asserts that 2+2=5 or there are square circles. While on the face of it both ideas seem absurd and illogical and it may not seem like any amount of arguments would ever convince me of it, I'd still ask them to provide arguments. And while one maybe able to prove the first by rounding off 2.4 to 2 and 4.8 to 5, the argument for the latter may very well end up undercutting logic itself. Doesn't mean that asking for evidence is pointless.
If nothing else, if the required "evidence" for god is provided, I'd atleast end up realizing that evidence doesn't work and give up my commitment to reason and start taking things on faith.
