Pim van Meurs: But people also believe in fairies, UFO's all based
upon 'evidence'. But this evidence hardly ever is scientific. So the
two as such are mutually exclusive/
Mike: They are mutually exclusive with regards to a particular methodology
that has a particular set of rules. The point is that evidence need not
be interpreted in light of the rules of science.
Sure, we can always consider "I have seen the light of God' as evidence but evidence of what? What good is evidence if it has no meaning?
Mike: For example, a man has evidence that his spouse is faithful. He has no proof. He simply has
evidence (in many forms) that substantiates his faith and trust in her. This evidence renders his faith rational. But it is not scientific.
It isn't ? Science does not deal in proof, merely in evidence. And when the evidence points strongly to a certain position then that is the position science will take. That you call this 'faith and trust' merely confuses the issue. Faith is not based on any evidence.
Mike: The notion that the concept of evidence belongs only in the domain of science is plainly wrong.
Sure, one can try to define evidence in the supernatural regime. Care to try? Care to share your 'evidence of a God'?
Mike: As for fairies and UFOs, these are all "one more posited thing in our
universe." The evidence for their existence must be interpreted
in this light. The existence of God is not "one more posited thing
in our universe" as God's existence results in a gestalt shift *about*
our universe. The evidence for God's existence must be interpreted
in this light.
What evidence I wonder are you refering to here?
Mike: Thus, it comes down to this. If you don't see any evidence for God's
existence, then of course you're going to rule out intelligent intervention.
Pim van Meurs: It's not what I believe I see. My statement should be seen in
the light of scientific enquiry.
Mike: When it comes to God's existence, science has nothing to say. That is,
evidence can exist (recognized due to metaphysical assumptions) even if it
is not acknowledged by science. I will recognize your statement in the light
of scientific inquiry, but as I said before, I am not interested in how to
label things.
Pim: What value does this evidence then?
Mike: The value of evidence, like all values, is dependent on the context and
the person.
So evidence really is another word for faith after all. You consider your faith evidence that God must exist.
Mike: I do not agree that the only way evidence has value is
if it can be fitted into a system of inquiry that comes with a particular
label. That's simply not how human beings work.
Fine, but then the value of the evidence is meaningless. Sure you might think you are God or believe in fairies. No evidence needed other than your faith that you observe 'evidence' supporting this.
Pim: Sure, evidence can exist but can we recognize it as such?
Mike: Perception of evidence for God's existence has always been
a controversial topic. The problem is that God's existence involves
a gestalt shift, not the discovery of one more thing. Neither can
we approach his existence in a truly objective manner, as his
existence entails all sorts of implications we may like or not
like.
So in the end there is no evidence for God's existence other than some vague definition of what you believe God must be. That you already mentioned that objectivity cannot be applied makes the evidence of little value.
Mike: The point is that when you say scientific inquiry rules out
intelligent intervention (because there is no scientific evidence
for God's existence), this means nothing more than scientific
inquiry rules out intelligent intervention.
I did not say this. I said that there is no evidence of a God other than a faith based belief which you call a subjective evidence. Fine, rename it all you want in the end there is still the same issue.
Mike: It's like saying that in the game of Monopoly, we all agree to rule out getting loans from the bank. That no one therefore takes loans from the bank doesn't mean there is no such thing
as a bank. It's just how we play the game and some people confuse the game for reality.
If you create a strawman it's easy to destroy it Mike.