Logical fallacies and magical cacti

Your argument is wrong because it proves too much.  

You see, not only religious arguments for God's existence are dependent upon circular reasoning, but  EVERY worldview and indeed any attempt to prove anything. 

But of course! Circular reasoning is critical to everything! That's why it is entirely valid and necessary in proving the existence and power of Terry and His Magic Cactus! I hope you can now see that surely Terry and His Magic Cactus are the most powerful beings in the universe!

Axioms are the beginning point of EVERY argument.  

You're right. I should have considered that. This will improve my argument greatly! I take as an axiom that Terry is infallible. He is my source of information, so I must be right.

Thus to carry on as though Terri and his magic Cacti are doing anything particularly silly BECAUSE of Circular reasoning is inconsistent. 

Wait, you don't agree with circular reasoning?

Logic, Experience (senses), and Revelation are all sources of what some people claim are truth.  

Yep! Everything around us is defined by the Magic Cactus, so you are experiencing it right now! Surely you realize that it exists at this point?

Each of these is an axiom. All axioms are circular.  Circular reasoning can be a fallacy, but not always.  The thing is to distinguish between when it is necessary and when it is fallacy.  Your argument FAILS because you don't even understand that there is a difference. 

Oh yes, I know there's a difference. That which is consistent with the Magic Cactus is necessary, and anything else is a fallacy. Could you put forth an argument otherwise? I'm doubtful!

In conclusion: You made correct conclusions on distinctions between truth and falsehood, but you were unable to use them to disprove Terry and His Magic Cactus. Better luck next time!

The issue is that even though you point out that some assumptions are reasonable and some are not, we will never all agree on which assumption can be made, or which versions of circular reasoning are valid.

Even though I am pretty confident that we can all agree that Terry's infallibility is a fallacious assumption, when it comes to religion people don't always agree, and the "logic" that is commonly used to prove God is considered fallacious by many.

It is often said to be circular, and while you try get past that common counterargument, the issue is that what we as humans think is and isn't valid will always be subjective.

Because of this, there isn't really any way for you to argue that the assumptions that I make in my argument for "Terry and His Magic Cactus" are fallacious, yet others aren't.

We can't rely on our intuition either, because it isn't hard for people to twist our often flawed intuition into making us believe ridiculous things.

If I and the resources, I could probably convince many people that Terry and His Magic Cactus are real and should be worshipped. How can you be so confident that modern religious beliefs don't work in a similar way?

I take it you have never studied what makes literature authentic or not. Or how they are validated or not? 

And I also assume from your comments that you inconsistently apply a higher standard to some sorts of knowledge, such as revelation, than you would to either logic or experience. 

It's fallacious because it is not really a circular argument at this time.  It's fallacious because we need to rely upon your hearsay to adopt that position.  Religions usually have that first-hand witness. The Bible is unusual among holy books that actually claim it is infallible. The Koran doesn't.  The Bible is self-testifying. When we check others, we discover there are very few that ACTUALLY make that claim.  In my view, this means we can deduct any book that doesn't make such a claim. It doesn't prove those that do make that claim, but to not make this claim certainly removes it as being possible. Books that attempt to prove it based on the validity of something else - such as the Book of Mormon also rule themselves out- since they rely upon hearsay.  

• Both proclaim their own infallibility.
  
• Both were written by one or more human beings, who could very well have been lying or mistaken.
  

• One has sold millions of physical copies, and one just came into existence right here, right now.
  
• One is widely accepted as true and good, the other is not.
  

SO what? How is that even an argument? Of course we are subjective. Oh well then I suppose I should stop thinking. 

Everyone relies on intuition for some things. Most people make most decisions everyday by intuition. And mostly that means by their feelings. I feel like eating this. Or that. I feel like putting this on or that. The point is twisting things is what people will do when they don't want to accept someone else's point of view.  You are correct it is almost dishonest at times.  Yet this doesn't imply it is ALWAYS for ALL People. 

There are lots of naive people in the world. There are lots of people who wants things and need things and are desperate.  People tend to follow things that make them feel part of it.  Many religions operate that way as do schools and uni's and secular places. Like footy clubs.  

I also happen to think that there are many copy cats in the world.  But a copy cat implies an original.   The question is how do we determine the original from the copycats? Some skeptically add - how do we know there is an original? That too is a good question.  I say - let's go back and examine axioms.  

And I also assume from your comments that you inconsistently apply a higher standard to some sorts of knowledge, such as revelation, than you would to either logic or experience. 

What do you mean "inconsistently apply?"

It's fallacious because it is not really a circular argument at this time.  It's fallacious because we need to rely upon your hearsay to adopt that position.  Religions usually have that first-hand witness. The Bible is unusual among holy books that actually claim it is infallible. The Koran doesn't.  The Bible is self-testifying. When we check others, we discover there are very few that ACTUALLY make that claim.  In my view, this means we can deduct any book that doesn't make such a claim. It doesn't prove those that do make that claim, but to not make this claim certainly removes it as being possible. Books that attempt to prove it based on the validity of something else - such as the Book of Mormon also rule themselves out- since they rely upon hearsay.  

So basically, the Bible claims to be infallible, and other holy books don't, therefore it's the only one that could possibly be true. This is why I am doing this in the first place. Look, I can do it to:

Behold! This is the Holy Book of Terry, written here in this forum. This book is infallible. Everything written here is absolutely true!

So by your logic that's on equal footing with the bible now... right? No? If this counts as hearsay how does the Bible not count as hearsay?

Similarities:

• Both proclaim their own infallibility.
  
• Both were written by one or more human beings, who could very well have been lying or mistaken.
  

Differences:

• One has sold millions of physical copies, and one just came into existence right here, right now.
  
• One is widely accepted as true and good, the other is not.
  

Okay, so one is more widely accepted, and by a large margin. How does that affect things? Let me make this comparison as clear as possible:

Imagine that twenty people start telling everyone that there is a pig in my living room, and people listen, and believe them. Soon enough, one thousand people are going around saying that there is a pig in my living room. Now, one person starts saying that there is a donkey in my living room, and no one listens. Now, your claim is that I am basing my claims off of hearsay. Is the claim that a donkey is in my living room any more of hearsay than the claim that a pig is in my living room? The pig may have gained more traction, and his been around for longer, but how is it any less of hearsay? It isn't. Similarly, one cannot reasonably say that "Terry" is based on hearsay while also saying that the Bible is not.

SO what? How is that even an argument? Of course we are subjective. Oh well then I suppose I should stop thinking. 

The point is, everything that you are using against Terry and His Magic Cactus can be and often is applied to the Bible.

You're just dodging my question: How can you be so confident that modern religious beliefs don't work in a similar way?

OMG!  Hopefully Miss Tradesecret doesn't want Jesus to produce Himself at this time to actually PROVE Himself like she wants Terry and his magical cacti to do! This is because all Jesus has pertaining to His existence is "hearsay accountings" of Himself within the Bible, especially with the writers of the four Gospels that all contradict each other and that were not eyewitnesses because they were written 70-110 years after Jesus' crucifixion!   Huh? WTF?

Notwithstanding, the alleged proof of my serial killer Jesus outside of the Bible doesn't start until we hear from Flavius Josephus who was not an eyewitness  to Jesus’ existence, but only wrote a couple of terse statements about Jesus from "hearsay accountings" in his book of Antiquities.  What makes Josephus’ remarks about Jesus even more concerning is the fact that He didn't mention Jesus as being God of the universe!  Furthermore, Jesus died approximately in 36AD, and Josephus' birth was 33AD, and his Antiquities were written in 97AD, mentioning through "hearsay accountings" and "non eyewitness accounts," of a Jesus 64 years later!  This is supposedly the proof of a Jesus? WHAT? *COUGH*

Relating to the above historical FACTS, is like Neil Armstrong landing on the moon and walking on it for the first time in the history of man, and having not a single person write about it during the time it occurred and subsequently, but only 64 years later as equal to Josephus’ writings within his Antiquities about a bible Jesus! Oh my God,  will irrefutable facts ever show themselves about Jesus as the Christian God? So far, the answer is NO!

In a court of law today with the aforementioned entities in trying to prove the assumed evidence of a Jesus as God, it would be thrown out of court as inadmissible evidence because of hearsay, blatant contradictions, no eyewitnesses, and Jesus only being mentioned outside of the Bible 64 years after His crucifixion!  BUT, where I am a TRUE Christian, I have learned to just accept the above disturbing facts and just move on the best way that I can.  :(

Additionally, you can't present these historical facts to Miss Tradesecret because she will run away and hide from them as usual and will be nowhere to be seen because of her outright Bible stupidity and ignorance of same.

I explained what I meant. I suggested that you demand a higher standard of proof for religion than you do for other truths. I provided various standards that are used for different finding truth. 

Please, Have another read. I didn't say what you are suggesting.

I said that if a holy book doesn't claim infallibility we can deduct that from the list of potential infallible books.

So basically, the Bible claims to be infallible, and other holy books don't, therefore it's the only one that could possibly be true.

On the other hand, if a book claims infallibility it DOESN'T prove it is infallible. Yet it ought to be tested further.  There are about 3 or 4 books that claim infallibility.  None of them might be infallible. Yet, all of them can't be since they contradict each other.  Yet it provides us with a starting point.  

But let's assume for the sake of the argument - your argument -  that somehow that Terry and not you wrote something here in this forum.  After all, we all know, that Terry didn't write it and you did to make your point.

And this is part of your problem and why it is not equal to even the false claims of some religious books, let alone the Bible.  We know it is a joke.  

Previously you have merely asserted that Terry is infallible and that he listens to the Magic Cactus.  Since you are telling the story, and not Terry that makes it hearsay. The Bible is a book that tells a story about history.  It is about 40 different authors over 4000 years telling a consistent story.  The bible is not infallible because I say it is. That would be hearsay.  The Bible tells its own story.  It claims its own infallibility.  Whatever I say about it is hearsay.  Same as whatever you say about Terry and the magic cactus is hearsay.  that's why I said produce Terry and let him speak.  

The bible's authors all admitted that they were sinful creatures and prone to mistakes.  Many told lies in their lives. If you understood infallibility this would not be a concern for you.

There are more differences than you have articulated.  And what you fail to realise is that people believed its infallibility well before it was ever for sale.  And as for the book of Terry to be accepted as not good, that is baloney.  No one knows about the book of Terry - except you.  

In the middle of the Second World War 11 there was a book burning. And many thousands of bibles were burnt.  The bible's infallibility is not subject to the whim of the majority. 

DO you know what hearsay is?  It sounds like you need to do a refresher course.

Did the 20 people in the first part see the pig in your living room? 

 If they did and told some people and then soon a 1000 people heard and believed, then the first 20 people are providing first-hand eye witness testimony of what they saw.

The 1000 people who then believe what they heard from the first 20 are not eye-witnesses of the pig, but of what people have told them.  We wouldn't necessarily believe what the 1000 people heard is truth or lies.  We don't have enough evidence one way or the other. We would have to go and ask the 1000 why they think it is true. We would then go and talk to the original 20. Of course, even though the first 20 did see a pig, doesn't mean that you or I are going to believe them ipso facto.  We might try and determine if we can go the house and see the pig. But we might not be able to - since the pig has died since the original story was told and so we might deduce it was just a story.  An urban myth.

Or we might ask ourselves another question - we go to the house and see if there is any evidence that the pig was there?  Perhaps we might find some pig excrement. Or the place smells of pig.

Then we can't know for sure - since someone might have planted the excrement or sprayed the air with pig smell.  But there would seem to be circumstantial evidence. We could add that evidence to the eye witness testimony and draw some conclusions.

We might eventually take the view - it's nonsense. We know it's nonsense because there has never been a pig in this country ever. Or we might leave the question open and start to question the credibility of the witnesses.  What would be their motive to lie about this? DO they have a history of telling lies? Of concocting silly stories. What are they going to get out of it? 

The second part of your story - with one pig is no different.  That is the point.  Some people do their homework and some don't.  You seem to be saying that because some people don't do their homework and believe whatever, that everyone does that.  It's simply not true.

And the reality is - if one person does there homework and comes up with a conclusion that the evidence in the bible is plausible then that shouldn't be dismissed because there are a whole lot of gullible people. 

Not at all. I have asked you to produce Terry.  At least I have a book. 

I'm not dodging.  I don't think that all religions work the same.  Many work simply on fear or expectations.  

In our modern secular world, many people are taught the sciences from their textbooks and they believe it to be true. They never test it or check the credibility of their authors. They assume it's true.   For many people - today science has become the new religion. Scientists are like priests.  They are believed to be true at first glance. Sometimes they get caught when they are dodgy. Sometimes they never get caught.   But most scientists I think are genuine and are doing what they think is best. Many others do it for the money or the prestige.  Public scientists like the tenure and the grants that come from places like the UN. Private scientists like the kickbacks they get.  But most people in the community would never question them.  Unless - it is a scientist backing a tobacco company and some might then assume a bias. 

Religion and science works in similar ways. It is a plea to authority.  Yet this doesn't mean that their working tools are necessarily dodgy or have not been validated in the most appropriate ways.  

Stephen, seriously, i think Miss Tradesecret goes out of her way to be Bible Stupid because she likes to be corrected by us and the other members, because this act of her Bible ineptness is the only thing that she is known for within this Religion Forum!

Thank you for the clarification. Do you have an example of me doing this? I don't deny that there might be one, but I don't recall such a thing.

Okay, so you have now clarified that it is not the only such book, but the entirety of my argument after this still stands.

On the other hand, if a book claims infallibility it DOESN'T prove it is infallible. Yet it ought to be tested further.  There are about 3 or 4 books that claim infallibility.  None of them might be infallible. Yet, all of them can't be since they contradict each other.  Yet it provides us with a starting point.  

Yeah, I know. What's your point?

But let's assume for the sake of the argument - your argument -  that somehow that Terry and not you wrote something here in this forum.  After all, we all know, that Terry didn't write it and you did to make your point.

Wait a minute. The book claims its own infallibility, not Terry's. It just so happens to be called the "Holy Book of Terry." Why does it have to be written by Terry? Even so, yeah, sure, assume that if you consider it to be necessary.

And this is part of your problem and why it is not equal to even the false claims of some religious books, let alone the Bible.  We know it is a joke.  

Consider the hypothetical in which I actually believed in all of this stuff, and I made that very clear. You know, sort of like if a bunch of people believed that an all-powerful God who could have saved us all with the snap of his fingers instead decided to have us brutally murder His son. And why did we need saving with such a powerful God to watch over us? Because... (hmm... what's something equally ridiculous to the whole "Magic Cactus" thing...) he made a talking snake, and he knew everything that the snake was doing, (in fact he had control over it!) but he let it convince the people he made to go against him, and so then we all needed saving from the curse that he put on them. I suppose I should also say what they could possibly have done to "go against him." Maybe they ate an apple that gave them knowledge that he didn't want them to have. To add to the theme so far, I suppose he created the apple tree! Even better, he left them in a garden with it! Imagine if 2.2 billion people believed that stuff. Wouldn't that be weird? I hope that I have cleared up any confusion as to why I consider this a perfectly valid analogy.

Previously you have merely asserted that Terry is infallible and that he listens to the Magic Cactus.  Since you are telling the story, and not Terry that makes it hearsay. The Bible is a book that tells a story about history.  It is about 40 different authors over 4000 years telling a consistent story.  The bible is not infallible because I say it is. That would be hearsay.  The Bible tells its own story.  It claims its own infallibility.  Whatever I say about it is hearsay.  Same as whatever you say about Terry and the magic cactus is hearsay.  that's why I said produce Terry and let him speak.  

Well, I quite deliberately made that "book" of mine have no reference to Terry beyond its name, but if you still find this so problematic, suppose that I am the one being referred to when "Terry" is said.

In the middle of the Second World War 11 there was a book burning. And many thousands of bibles were burnt.  The bible's infallibility is not subject to the whim of the majority. 

Thank you so much for assisting me in striking down that anticipated counterargument! Seriously though, between this and the last thing you said, I'm beginning to wonder if you're mixing up your arguments and my arguments.

DO you know what hearsay is?  It sounds like you need to do a refresher course.

I just took about ten seconds to give myself one: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hearsay

Looks good to me!

Did the 20 people in the first part see the pig in your living room? 

Who knows? In either case, it's still hearsay!

 If they did and told some people and then soon a 1000 people heard and believed, then the first 20 people are providing first-hand eye witness testimony of what they saw.

It's still hearsay! Eye witness accounts that are still unsubstantiated are still hearsay!

The 1000 people who then believe what they heard from the first 20 are not eye-witnesses of the pig, but of what people have told them.  We wouldn't necessarily believe what the 1000 people heard is truth or lies.  We don't have enough evidence one way or the other. We would have to go and ask the 1000 why they think it is true. We would then go and talk to the original 20. Of course, even though the first 20 did see a pig, doesn't mean that you or I are going to believe them ipso facto.  We might try and determine if we can go the house and see the pig. But we might not be able to - since the pig has died since the original story was told and so we might deduce it was just a story.  An urban myth.

It is still hearsay! It continues to be hearsay!

Or we might ask ourselves another question - we go to the house and see if there is any evidence that the pig was there?  Perhaps we might find some pig excrement. Or the place smells of pig.

Well. That wasn't part of the story, but in that case it would not be hearsay.

Then we can't know for sure - since someone might have planted the excrement or sprayed the air with pig smell.  But there would seem to be circumstantial evidence. We could add that evidence to the eye witness testimony and draw some conclusions.

Yeah! Exactly! That's what would make it not hearsay in that case!

We might eventually take the view - it's nonsense. We know it's nonsense because there has never been a pig in this country ever. Or we might leave the question open and start to question the credibility of the witnesses.  What would be their motive to lie about this? DO they have a history of telling lies? Of concocting silly stories. What are they going to get out of it? 

It doesn't matter whether they were trustworthy or not, or whether they had motivation to lie or not, because without concrete evidence, it continues to be hearsay. (Remember: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hearsay)

The second part of your story - with one pig is no different.  That is the point.  Some people do their homework and some don't.  You seem to be saying that because some people don't do their homework and believe whatever, that everyone does that.  It's simply not true.

No, I am not. I am suggesting that both are cases of hearsay. That's it. This whole section of my post, from the Holy Book of Terry, to the story of the pig and the donkey was all just to demonstrate that the Bible is no less of hearsay than those few sentences of the "Holy Book of Terry" that I wrote on the spot. Also, it wasn't "with one pig," it was with one person claiming to have seen a donkey instead of a pig. The point was that the claim of there being a donkey was no more of hearsay than the claim of there being a pig.

And the reality is - if one person does there homework and comes up with a conclusion that the evidence in the bible is plausible then that shouldn't be dismissed because there are a whole lot of gullible people. 

Plausible? See a previous part of this post. Also, evidence? What evidence? Do tell!

Oh look! Tradesecret ran away! It's like you said!

Okay, so you have now clarified that it is not the only such book, but the entirety of my argument after this still stands.

It doesn't because I didn't make such a claim. Your argument doesn't refute what I said.

When we check others, we discover there are very few that ACTUALLY make that claim.

Behold! This is the Holy Book of Terry, written here in this forum. This book is infallible. Everything written here is absolutely true!

So by your logic that's on equal footing with the bible now... right? No? If this counts as hearsay how does the Bible not count as hearsay?

Consider the hypothetical in which I actually believed in all of this stuff, and I made that very clear. You know, sort of like if a bunch of people believed that an all-powerful God who could have saved us all with the snap of his fingers instead decided to have us brutally murder His son. And why did we need saving with such a powerful God to watch over us? Because... (hmm... what's something equally ridiculous to the whole "Magic Cactus" thing...) he made a talking snake, and he knew everything that the snake was doing, (in fact he had control over it!) but he let it convince the people he made to go against him, and so then we all needed saving from the curse that he put on them. I suppose I should also say what they could possibly have done to "go against him." Maybe they ate an apple that gave them knowledge that he didn't want them to have. To add to the theme so far, I suppose he created the apple tree! Even better, he left them in a garden with it! Imagine if 2.2 billion people believed that stuff. Wouldn't that be weird? I hope that I have cleared up any confusion as to why I consider this a perfectly valid analogy.

You just confirm my last point. 

Well, I quite deliberately made that "book" of mine have no reference to Terry beyond its name, but if you still find this so problematic, suppose that I am the one being referred to when "Terry" is said.

If Terry didn't write the book, who did? You? and what are your credentials?

Who knows? In either case, it's still hearsay!

Not if the 20 people give first-hand testimony of what they saw. They're not speaking hearsay. They're giving evidence. Of course, if I hear that evidence and tell someone else, then it's hearsay. 

A girl gets raped. Man denies it. No corroboration from any DNA evidence or other circumstantial evidence. Her evidence is not considered hearsay. It just hasn't been substantiated. And more than that - it hasn't been deemed untrue. Just not verified. But it is still not hearsay.

You know, sort of like if a bunch of people believed that an all-powerful God who could have saved us all with the snap of his fingers instead decided to have us brutally murder His son. And why did we need saving with such a powerful God to watch over us? Because... (hmm... what's something equally ridiculous to the whole "Magic Cactus" thing...) he made a talking snake, and he knew everything that the snake was doing, (in fact he had control over it!) but he let it convince the people he made to go against him, and so then we all needed saving from the curse that he put on them. I suppose I should also say what they could possibly have done to "go against him." Maybe they ate an apple that gave them knowledge that he didn't want them to have. To add to the theme so far, I suppose he created the apple tree! Even better, he left them in a garden with it! Imagine if 2.2 billion people believed that stuff. Wouldn't that be weird? I hope that I have cleared up any confusion as to why I consider this a perfectly valid analogy.

Plausible? See a previous part of this post. Also, evidence? What evidence? Do tell!

LOL @ you. First you need to learn what evidence is and what hearsay is. 

Phenomenon 'can occur, of which we have no answer in the moment,

I think I understand now. I had been under the impression that it simply meant "without evidence." I now understand that it effectively means a rumor: it is not a first-hand account, nor is there any evidence for. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If I rang you and told you I was in England and that it was raining outside.  What evidence from this can you give to a court room? 

1. You can give evidence that someone rang you.  2. You might recognise my voice and state that you were confident that it was me, due to past knowledge.  Of course, in our new world of AI technology, it is possible that someone has generated a copy of my voice.  So if the court were to ask you if you were sure that you were talking to a real person or an AI-generated voice, you might have to concede that you can't be sure.  Unless of course you are an expert and are able to determine such distinctions. You would need to establish your credentials and expertise and explain why it wasn't AI-generated.  

You couldn't say where I was located. I said I was in England, but that is just me telling you.  That is what we call "hearsay".  And the fact that I said it was raining. Again that is hearsay.   

3. You would be able to say with some confidence that when you spoke to me on the phone, I was alive.  

But that would be about all you could say.  Hearsay is not just a rumour. It is anything really that someone represents to you that is not first-hand evidence of yourself. 

The Bible has lots of people writing lots of different books.  There are people who were direct eyewitnesses to some events.  There are however lots of hearsay witness accounts.   Hearsay if it is corroborated is still hearsay.  It might confirm the truth but doesn't necessarily do so. For instance, if someone was next to me when I rang you and they confirmed that I was in England, that might corroborate it somewhat, but it is not definitive proof. It really is just further hearsay from a second witness. 

These are fascinating questions.  Finding out what is true is not the easiest thing to do in the world. All of us start with different approaches.  How do we know that 1 plus 1 = 2?   Mostly because we have been told so.   Yes, we have done the experiments and proved it. Haven't we? Or are we just following the logic behind it to a conclusion that is predetermined? Why is 1 plus 1, 2? We have definitions. We have logic. Why is logic right? Why is logic a plausible measuring stick? Because it works. Well, most of the time. Sometimes. Depending upon if we use proper logic.  But what happens if we don't use the right logic or if we are using fallacies? How would we know?  someone comes along with an alternative view of the world, for example, the earth revolves around the sun. How do we know he is right or wrong? 

We start with what we know.  I jump up and I land in the same spot.  Hmmm. the earth doesn't seem to have moved. How could the earth be moving then? I look at the sky. The sun comes up in the morning and it goes down at night. We still call it sunrise and sunset.  Does that observation prove one thing or the other?  I ask the world's best scientists at the time - 400 years ago.  99% of them say - there is a consensus - overwhelming consensus - that the sun goes around the earth and all the evidence points that way.  Should I trust the one who denies this - and whose theory seems to cut away at all of my own observations? At what point do I say "There is enough proof" to satisfy me? And does my satisfaction really matter when it comes to truth? 

This is one of the significant philosophical issues of seeking the truth.  Of course, in our day and age, there are even more troubles.  After all, it is politically incorrect to say truth exists or absolutes exist.   We are all to embrace a relativistic approach. Flexible. Fluid even.  50 years ago we KNEW that males and females were different because they had observable identifying organs. Now, the identifying organs apparently mean nothing. It is what "I feel" is true that is what matters.  Reason and modernism have been thrown out and replaced with post-modernism and feelings.  

It is an interesting study to see how much information of an early variety is around for many of our well-known historical figures. Along with the closest said documents to the time that such people ACTUALLY lived.  One of the best testimonies for the NT scriptures is the sheer bulk of such material and also how early or close it was to the original writings.  Whereas, with Plato and other famous philosophers, we have far less and all of the earliest manuscripts are from times that are much later than even the NT writings.  I provided some of this material earlier in another post. I will dig around and see if I can find it again. You might find it interesting.

For the record, I take the view that even math can't prove 100%.  Yes, I know the theory says it can. Yet the theory doesn't take into account presumptions. I accept it has "in theory" the view that it can.  Yet there are difficulties even with that view. And I am sure that you have seen them and perhaps even discounted them. Nevertheless, they exist and are relevant especially, when we are talking about truth, and understanding the source of such truth. And applying axioms which by definition are circular arguments that can't be proven. 

The question of evidence for unicorns is an intriguing one.  Why do you think one requires a different standard to the other?