Thursday, July 17, 2008

Requiring a higher standard for the existence of God than for anything else

Whoever the mysterious scholar is who writes over at Just Thomism was right on in his recent post in saying that the standard that is often required of evidence for God is a standard that no other truth could meet:

What is usually meant by evidence, however, is “evidence that can be persuasive to a hostile opponent when given within the confines of a combox or short debate” or “evidence that I can just look at and immediately understand the whole scientific structure in which it reveals itself as evidence”. Under this restriction, there is no “evidence” for God’s existence, or for any other scientific, mathematical, logical, or academic truth.

This is sort of what I was saying in a post several weeks ago in which I articulated why I believe in God--only he (whoever "he" is) has said it much better.

No comments: