Such evidence?
That seems to me to reflect what I see as the problem.
Do we need to fabricate a unique definition when talking about God? Do we want to do this to either easily rule God out, or to easily see him allowed to fit within the scope of evidence?
Can we not just use an overarching definition? One that would be used in everyday, but nevertheless with some rigor usage. Some rigor as in not sloppy. But not refined as to exclude a priori what one want to see excluded.
Yesterday I listened to (watched) a podcast where the terms hypothesis and theory were at one point used interchangeably. The one guy corrected himself when he found himself having used the word theory when what he was actually doing was meaning hypothesis. He put his usage down to using the word theory colloquially.
I’m probably rambling here, but I’m not looking for some crazily worked-over definition, (for evidence) but just something that gives us a clue as to whether the standard of evidence has been met.
It seems to me entirely reasonable to ask the guy that used the word, what he meant by it. No?
1 Like