Since we are talking about standards of evidence lets try a hypothetical claim to compare what would be acceptable evidence, and how the claim compares to a god claim:
Lets say someone claims they own a house. So firstly this is so ordinary a claim that unless there were consequences one might believe the claim without any evidence, but we can easily cite objective evidence to support it. for example deeds to the property, mortgage payments, utility bills in the owners name, in the UK records at the land registry office etc etc. Not infallible, but compelling objective evidence I think we can say.
Now, imagine someone claimed they owned a house, then when asked for evidence they said they knew they did based on spiritual conviction rather than proof (religious faith), would anyone accept that standard of faith even for such an ordinary claim? I must say I am dubious.
Now imagine they claim their house can’t be detected in any empirical way, are you more or less convinced of the original claim? Now imagine they claim the house created the universe and everything in it, again more or less convinced? Now imagine they claimed the house had a nasty posthumous punishment for disbelieving their claim, or a great reward for accepting it as is, more or less convinced, or still the same?
Now imagine when you express doubt, that the person claiming to own the house, uses an argument, such as you can’t prove I don’t own a house, so an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. anyone accepting this claim now?
Suppose they then argue that if they don’t own the house how do you explain a set of house keys they have, after all it’s a logical inference they say, that house keys open a house? They then point out that people live in house, if they don’t have this house explain where they live then? Anyone convinced now.
Now in desperation at your stubbornness, they show you a book, and in the book various characters talk about the house, make claims about it being invisible etc etc., but they can’t say who wrote the book or when, and some of the claims in the book are demonstrably false, but they claim the book is infallible, you just need to interpret it correctly, is this a compelling reason to imagine the original claim is real?
They laugh at your foolish bias in remaining dubious, and point out that the invisible house they own grants wishes, and they can prove it, You’re intrigued but dubious, they then cite anecdotal claims of people who have made wishes to the house that came true, some of which they claim defy natural or scientific explanation, they point to the enormous number of people who believe the house is real, they point out that believing the house is real has changed people’s lives for the better, these are mostly anecdotal claims, but maybe they offer some examples where people have genuinely become less dysfunctional when they join groups of people who share the belief the house is real, and enjoy the group support it offers, anyone convinced the invisible magic wish granting house is real yet.
Now imagine that throughout much of human history and still today in some places, the belief was not being offered as a choice, but that there were dire even fatal consequences to expressing doubt. Is it a more compelling prospect now, or less?
They point out that despite the hubris of scientism, science can’t and won’t ever be able to explain the invisible magic wish granting house. They point out that the material universe could not possible have created itself, they insist only an idiot who doesn’t understand science would say otherwise. Paradoxically they assert there is some scientific evidence for the invisible magic wish granting house, but when asked can’t explain why the vast majority of scientists don’t accept it is real, and the ones that do can’t offer scientific evidence that the vast majority of scientists accept, as if this is just a subjective belief some scientists hold.
Children are indoctrinated into believing the invisible magic wish granting house is real, by powerful organisations. Other countries have different versions of the invisible magic wish granting house, that reflect their history and culture, but says the original claimant, all of those are wrong. He then asks what you are basing your doubt on, insists you demonstrate your criteria for examining evidence for invisible magic wish granting houses.
This then is what we have been presented with in this thread, is anyone more convinced than they were, that the invisible magic wish granting house is real?
What the fuck is wrong with you people, you’re clearly all biased and ignorant, too stupid even to save yourselves from eternal damnation at the hands of the invisible magic wish granting house, even though it still loves you and wants you to be saved.