JerseyBoy and Gonzo309 may be surprised to hear this, but I also think that indirect evidence can be sufficient to draw a conclusion on the issue of a creator or anything else. The biblical example of doubting Thomas is relevant here in John 20:26-29. "Unless I see the mark of the nails on his hands, unless I put my finger into the place where the nails were, and my hand into his side, I will not believe it.

A week later his disciples were once again in the room, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them, saying "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here; see my hands. Reach your hand here and put it into my side. Be unbelieving no longer, but believe. Thomas said, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said, "Because you have seen me, you have found faith. Blessed are they who never saw me and yet have found faith." The apostle Paul writes that there 500 people that saw Jesus after the resurrection. That is a lot of people to call liars. Objectivists would need to probe Jesus' hands and side as Thomas did to believe in Jesus' resurrection. As for me, the preponderance of the historical evidence is sufficient, especially when one factors in the many prophecies concerning Jesus.

It was also sufficient for the class to be convinced of the existence of God. Most Christians depend on written first person accounts of what happened in the time of Christ plus the certainty of fulfilled prophecy in the scriptures, some yet to be fulfilled. This is more than enough proof for us to believe. The prophecies about Christ were written over 1000+ years before Christ and were translated into Greek (Septuagint) in 273 BC so there is no possibility of it being written after His time on earth. This is confirmed by secular historian accounts like Flavius Josephus. He fulfilled 300+ prophecies of His first appearing.

If in a court case proof is shown from a deposition or a video, that would be considered sufficient evidence to rule on that case. Indirect evidence is being used to prove guilt. How many folks have been jailed that were innocent?

jbrenner: "For Christians, the indirect evidence is sufficient to make a conclusion.

"Indirect evidence" for the purpose of drawing a tentative conclusion is good enough for the majority of people, most of the time, for the majority of issues, both trivial and important. That applies to Objectivists, too.

"A direct proof of God's existence would be required for objectivists."

A "direct proof"? I don't know what that is. What is a "direct" proof vs. an "indirect proof"? And why does only the issue of God require this higher standard of proof, when you don't require it for anything else in life? Most of science, for example, rests on indirect proof, not "direct" (whatever that is), and everything in forensic science rests on indirect proof.

I just love that you posit two different standards of proof: a lower, easier one for issues you approve of (science), and a higher, more difficult (if not downright impossible) one for issues you disapprove of (religion).