Paul Clarke maintained that sceptics would disregard any evidence. He asked if you believed everything you saw on TV or in a magic show, and would dismiss any evidence God gave you.

Of course, if I found the autograph copies of the Gospels in my bedroom this morning, I would hardly dismiss the millions of pounds I would get by selling them. How would I disregard that?

But what evidence would I reject?

Suppose I had a dream where God told me to eat some food. Paul Clarke would maintain that I would dismiss that as just a dream.

And I probably would just dismiss it as just a dream.

Now suppose my friend Peter had a dream where God told him to eat some food. I'm sure Paul Clarke would scoff that sceptics would dismiss that as just a dream and not evidence at all.

But surely I would be right to dismiss it as just a dream. If I believed dreams, I would be a lunatic.

There are many accounts of dreams in the Bible. Could Paul Clarke explain consistently why they should not just be dismissed as dreams?

Will Paul Clarke accept just anything as evidence for God - even dreams?