Replies

‘The question of truth depends on the standards of proof demanded”

As I’ve always said...everything is relative. In this case it’s the truth. As I’ve also said, if I wake up tomorrow believing that someone came back from the dead, so be it.

Standards of proof may be different but that does not make the relative. Relativity implies that one is as good as another, relative to the situation. Some proofs are far superior to others. For instance, the standard of proof in a criminal trial is guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil trial the standard is preponderance of evidence. It is possible to demand the same for both types of trials, but would you prefer to be tried if the prosecutor was only required to prove your guilt based on a preponderance of evidence?

Likewise, as human beings have no real access to the spiritual world, we cannot demand that spiritual truths be proved with the accuracy of a mathematical theorem. And for the same reason we cannot demand scientific standards of proof because scientific studies require that the test be repeatable by another party and the results obtained be the same or similar. As access to the spiritual world is limited and extremely individualized, such a requirement is impossible. For instance, we cannot stand on the shores of the Red Sea, hold up a staff, and ask (and expect) that God will part the waters, as Moses did.

So be it what? Would you believe that God exist if a person (say, your great-great grandfather) returned from the dead? Would you believe that Jesus is the Messiah should such an event occur? Would Jesus have to be present for such a miracle to occur? Or would you be satisfied if a minister of God was present at the resurrection?