I don't accept the 'historical' standard of evidence for things that I might actually have to care about if they were true.
I think it's mostly this, for me. Clearly there are different standards of proof. To win a civil court cases, you need to prove balance of probability is in your favour. To get someone convicted of a crime, you need proof beyond reasonable doubt. To make someone change the entire way they live their life and throw away many of their material beliefs in the way the universe works? Feels to me like one would want better proof than the historical standard of evidence. And presumably an omnipotent God could provide that proof if he wanted to...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-01-15 04:12 pm (UTC)From:I think it's mostly this, for me. Clearly there are different standards of proof. To win a civil court cases, you need to prove balance of probability is in your favour. To get someone convicted of a crime, you need proof beyond reasonable doubt. To make someone change the entire way they live their life and throw away many of their material beliefs in the way the universe works? Feels to me like one would want better proof than the historical standard of evidence. And presumably an omnipotent God could provide that proof if he wanted to...