A slight correction: 'is completely logical for the viewpoint that accepts nothing that does not meet the definition of 'objective'.
Let's say that we accept non-objective evidence. So we accept evidence from our own experience that others cannot witness. And we also accept evidence that potentially cannot be experienced by ourselves, but can only be experienced by others.
Why should I believe in something that cannot be experienced by myself? I really shouldn't believe in what Jimmy on the bad trip in the corner tells me about spiders all over the walls, and aliens coming to probe me. It may be very real in his mind, but it's no part of my world.
Likewise, he shouldn't bother believing in anything that I might tell him that I've experienced that he cannot. I may be filled by the love of God, but if he doesn't feel it then there's no reason for him to believe.
And so we end up at the point where humanity as a group can only really agree on things that they can all experience. If you've got a personal experience, then you may have to treat that as real. Jimmy on the LSD trip is probably going to behave as though the spiders and aliens are real, simply because if he doesn't and they
do happen to be real, invisible aliens and spiders that only he can see then he's :censored:ed.
But you can't and shouldn't expect others to believe in your subjective experiences. The only time anyone else
should care about your subjective experience is if they can experience it too. At which point it's objective, and everything's fine.
So many people don't understand this. If you're the only person that can experience something, nobody else could or should give a rat's arse. If they can experience it too, then it's objective and no problem.
There's one way around this. If you are the only observer then you have to take your observations at face value, and no external data from other things that appear to be observers is admissable. You're stuck with only your own subjective observations, and so you must make do with those.
But this requires assuming that you're the only true consciousness, and therefore sort of rules out God. If there was a God, he's be conscious, and he'd be able to verify any observations that you might make. Bringing you back into the need for objective observations. The moment you have more that one observer, you need objectivity.
So, are we all just meat puppets here to create an illusion for you, the true consciousness?
I have thought about what would convince a skeptic that God exists, and I think that only personal revelation would do it, but that just shifts the accusation from "you're not looking" to "perhaps it's been there but you found 'natural causes' to be a sufficient explanation".
If natural causes are a sufficient explanation, then it's not proof of God. Proof, in any sense, is something that narrows the possible causes down to a small subset. If an event doesn't rule out natural causes as a possible explanation, then it cannot be proof of God.
What would convince a skeptic that God exists is an event that only God or something very similar to God could cause.
I don't expect anyone to believe that miracle berries make lemons taste super delicious. But I can feed them miracle berries, and feed them lemons, and they can taste the deliciousness. There are other possible explanations for this event, like I rigged the lemons to be especially delicious. But a few simple experiments can rule out these sort of tricks, and the best explanation ends up being that miracle berries change your sense of taste in such a way that lemons are yummy. This may be ultimately wrong, but it's the best explanation for the observed facts.
God needs to be able to do the same. Some set of circumstances for which a rational, unbiased observer could say "God or a similar being is the best explanation for this", and have it stand up to people actually trying to make sure that it's the case. Just as we did making sure that I hadn't rigged the lemons or some other trick.
People come up with events all the time for which they think that God is the best explanation. To date, I'm not aware of one that's actually stood up to investigation. If it doesn't stand up, then it wasn't strong enough to convince a skeptic.
Really, everyone should be skeptical of everything. There's no need to go around believing in stuff willy nilly. There's plenty of time for that when the evidence for it whacks you between the eyes.
