4 ms·

I think it's getting at: say you had more actual evidence for the God theory than you did for evolution. Your response seems to indicate that you would STILL pr

I think it's getting at: say you had more actual evidence for the God theory than you did for evolution. Your response seems to indicate that you would STILL prefer evolution, as you would require certain, irrevocable proof for God. Your previous response said that you didn't need that level of proof for evolution, hence it states your views are logically inconsistent. I made the same "mistake", as I intended to imply that I would need "very strong" (but not "certain" proof) for the God theory. Basically, the question's are a bit ambiguous (especially with only True/False responses), but logically I think the site is correct. -- Ayjay on Fedang

timcederman 16y ago
The previous question said "Is evolution essentially true?" Well, yes. Plenty of physical evidence for it. I read the question as "Do you need actual evidence to believe in a God." I say yes. I don't see how my views are conflicted there - evidence means something is "true" (ah, but what is the definition of truth? We end up going down the rabbit hole about evidence, models, likely truths, etc)
- ugh 16y ago
  I think the important word here is "irrevocable". Saying you don't need irrevocable evidence doesn't mean you don't need any evidence. Irrevocable seems to me to be pretty much the same as unfalsifiable which doesn't make much sense and would not be good evidence for the existence of god.
Trindaz 16y ago
@Ayjay, What would consist as "very strong" proof? Some of my thoughts on that: Any 'proof' God gives must be physical so we can measure it. Anything we can measure is a 'normal' part of the universe, and so can't be God. Rainbows = not God because it's just water vapor and light The universe = not God because it's what happens when you get some kind of powerful explosion that throws out matter and energy for billions of years. God literally appearing in the sky in physical form announcing that He is God and that He's responsible for this creation = not necessarily God because it could be alien technology, or propaganda warfare from US evangelicals, or <insert theory here that will let us spend millennia arguing before deciding anything has been proved> --Trindaz on Fedang

timcederman 16y ago

The previous question said "Is evolution essentially true?" Well, yes. Plenty of physical evidence for it. I read the question as "Do you need actual evidence to believe in a God." I say yes. I don't see how my views are conflicted there - evidence means something is "true" (ah, but what is the definition of truth? We end up going down the rabbit hole about evidence, models, likely truths, etc)

ugh 16y ago
I think the important word here is "irrevocable". Saying you don't need irrevocable evidence doesn't mean you don't need any evidence. Irrevocable seems to me to be pretty much the same as unfalsifiable which doesn't make much sense and would not be good evidence for the existence of god.

Trindaz 16y ago

@Ayjay, What would consist as "very strong" proof? Some of my thoughts on that: Any 'proof' God gives must be physical so we can measure it. Anything we can measure is a 'normal' part of the universe, and so can't be God. Rainbows = not God because it's just water vapor and light The universe = not God because it's what happens when you get some kind of powerful explosion that throws out matter and energy for billions of years. God literally appearing in the sky in physical form announcing that He is God and that He's responsible for this creation = not necessarily God because it could be alien technology, or propaganda warfare from US evangelicals, or <insert theory here that will let us spend millennia arguing before deciding anything has been proved> --Trindaz on Fedang