Prove it...

In a previous post, I briefly mentioned my visits to the YouTube comment sections.
This, however, was a gross under-exaggeration—
I graze there like a sheep on the Windows XP background image. Which, I know, is about as intellectually healthy as a dolphin dive into freshly set concrete. But it does offer some interesting perspectives on what people consider to be "proof."

The religious folk would have you believe that reading the Bible is ample proof of its own truth and the validity of the claims contained within it—
“It’s true because it says it is” being the simplified version. Sure, some offer a slightly deeper perspective, noting these are the words of eyewitnesses—justifying that by asking, “Well, why would they lie?”

Well, let’s consider aliens for a moment.
(Bear with me.) There have been thousands upon thousands of UFO sightings over the years, many accompanied by video footage taken on what appears to be a Casio calculator watch. Add to that the thousands of eyewitness reports—including those who claim to have been abducted themselves. So not only do we have a plethora of eyewitness accounts, we have first-hand testimonies. These people are still alive. You could go talk to them yourself! (I do not recommend it—you might leave with a tinfoil addiction and a newfound distrust of which ever government agency controls the freshwater supply.)

And yet, I think most of us can agree: we don’t take those claims seriously. So that begs the question: Why would they lie? Not only that—alien claims don’t require the complete negation of just about every natural law known to man.

So why is that less believable than this:

A being of unimaginable power and knowledge, existing beyond the boundaries of space and time, capable of creating an entire universe—
who then decides the best way to communicate His/Her/Its eternal, divine will…
is via book, written to a group of illiterate hairless apes, in the middle of nowhere, in a language nobody speaks anymore.

Seriously?

This is more believable than life forming on another planet, with maybe just a 5,000-year head start?
If we—the same species that eats dish soap for social validation—can go from inventing the light bulb to publicly available AI in 150 years, what might they accomplish in 5,000? Finding us is the only truly difficult part in all that. The double-standard people display when it comes to evidence puts any toxic relationship to shame.

Now, I’m not saying we should accept blurry, pixelated images of dinner plates mid-air as gospel.
Nor the amazing tales of intergalactic proctology. What I’m saying is simply this: If you're going to accept a claim based on the bare minimum of what could be considered “evidence,” then—intellectually—you should accept all claims by that same standard. And if you're going to demand an incredibly high burden of proof for an opposing claim, you'd better have a stacked deck in your hand, ready to play. Because “Because I say so” just isn’t going to cut it.

Why isn’t it enough?

Because I say so.