Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

It seems the majority of this thread has been about skepticism and what is skeptical and what is pseudoskeptical and very little of this thread has been justifying using 'Faith' in epistemological questions.

Skepticism:

Skepticism is characterised by doubt or incredulity towards some specific thing, or as a general outlook regarding any claim.Skeptics are generally incredulous to the idea that absolute truth can be 100% known (principle of fallibilism).Skeptics start doubting a claim. Their modus operandi is to criticise the claim. If it becomes clear that the claim has no supporting evidence, and requires ad hoc explanations to explain shortcomings, incredulity regarding the claim remains.This is because most claims that can be made are false, this should be self-evident. All true claims can be phrased negatively to render them false. Add to that all the claims which are nothing to do with the truth at all and it should become clear that false claims outweigh positive ones.If a claim can survive the trial by fire - it gains acceptance from skeptics, all the while evidence is sought.If a claim, in order to survive the trial by fire, has to whittle itself down to an untestable or unfalsifiable position - then it is doomed to remain in the position of incredulity, doubt and well...skepticism.This is not pseudoskepticism which is apparently the process of dismissing experimental results as being the result of interference, bias, poor experimental setup etc...without having evidence that the things claimed could be a factor.Nor is it the superpseudoskepticism which seems to be the process of dismissing experimental results as being the result of interference, bias, poor experimental setup etc...without having evidence that proves this is what happened in the specific experiment in question.It is my position that the most successful epistemological methodology has doubt at its heart: science.

Faith

Faith is essentially the opposite of skepticism. Instead of starting from a position of doubt, the explorer of truths starts by trusting certain claims as being true. It represents a certain level of trust.This trust is not usually based on evidential propositions. This is usually seen in cases where a skeptic will question a person's faith based position only to find themselves going around in circles as the faith-based claimer seems to be suggesting that the skeptic would accept the evidence if they first trusted the source (as in - one needs to have faith before one can accept a faith based conclusion).I feel this is a terrible way of going about knowledge since there are so many possible false claims compared with true ones, there is a good chance a faith based claim is one of the false ones.

What RAZD doesn't seem to get, and I'm sorry I wasn't clear about this, is that lack of evidence is evidence of absence for us. It's like this: assume there's an alien civilization that happens to be green, furry, and have generally Oni-like temperaments.Now, if I have no evidence, does that give me any reason to know that they don't exist? No. But does it give me reason to believe and live as if they didn't? Absolutely.If Sagan came up to you with his dragon story, whether it really exists or not, would it actually have any effect on the way you think or act?T&U

---

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts

​

I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes

​

"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

This is one hilarious group of aliens! What you can ask for, and find evidence against, is the persons reason for thinking that these AWESOME aliens exist. If they say, well I saw a light, it looked like an alien craft, thus I concluded it was cool mof'n aliens.Well, lets look at the lights, see what you saw, then we can find out what we're looking at, and not just jump to any such conclusion about aliens, gods, etc.There's a universe, it needed creation, god did it ... really? Did he? Or are you just in awe of the universe?- Oni

Straggler, I'm not sure I understand your statement above. Unlike some of the folks here at EvC, some agnostics like our friend, RAZD, actually have an open and objective mindset which considers all possibilities.Try to put yourself in the shoes of an agnostic who's gone through what our dear friend has endured. Such events like this discovery get the attention of bonafide truth-seekers.I take your comments to imply that this discovery is simply an unknown species.The discovery, though a genus distinct from fossil forms is nevertheless a coelacanth, being a fish thought to have become instinct 65 million years ago. So, for an alleged 65 years this fish, showing relatively minimal micro-evolution, has lived and thrived.ABE: This discovery, indeed, should raise questions in the minds of truth-seeking agnostics relative to dating methodology and interpretations of the fossil record. That is not to say that it has necessarily shaken RAZD's secularist mindset, but that he has cited it is a commentary to the fact that RAZD is a fair and balanced agnostic who recognizes possibilities alternative to the majority POV. Edited by Buzsaw, : Add comment.Edited by Buzsaw, : Tidy up post

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I've been thinking about these chocolate sprinkles and it occurs to me that not only are they NOT demanded here, but we mathematicians dont even want them! Yet in just about everything we've seen, the model works only up to a point and then things get inexact. The many-body problem in gravity, quantum tunneling, chaotic systems - these can all be modeled at a simple enough scale with the equations we can bring to bear on the issue ("Assume a spherically symmetrical distribution...").But to go for exactitude, completeness and such, we will find that things get weird. While perhaps these are not Rrhain's chocolate sprinkles per se, they are something to bear in mind when using the model that "works". Suffice it to say that the current model is "working" better than anything else, but it is still being improved upon. Now, as I understand it in my brief time on this board, RAZD's chocolate sprinkles are vastly different from, say, Iano's or Buzsaw's or Phat's. Everyone, myself included, has some unique kind of perception of these "chocolate sprinkles" imbedded within our worldview. For example - and correct me if I am wrong - I think Rrhain & RAZD are closer to each other than RAZD is to Buzsaw in that the models they embrace for describing the world of today are, to all degrees of measurement, indistinguishable. The only difference is perhaps in the description of the moment this Universe came into existence.Now it would be great from a mathematician's view if we didnt have any chocolate sprinkles, but I think this will turn out to be wishful thinking. No matter how much the model gets improved upon, there will always be a gap between it and reality - a gap filled with those pesky chocolate sprinkles. It's a pursuit curve at best.It is possible that somewhere up ahead in the sprinkles we'll find an Ace of Spades Straggler insists we're so very unlikely to find in this unbelievably huge deck of card events our observations are checking through (753,322,867,003 cards checked so far & no Ace of Spades yet).BTW - sorry to interrupt. Wasnt looking for the Room for Arguing, but rather the Room for Sleep Deprivation. Must be further down the hall. Gentlemen: as you were.

---

- xongsmith

Hi Buzsaw,I think you missed RAZD's point about the Coelacanths. He wasn't quoting them as evidence against evolution (which indeed they aren't, but we have other threads discussing that) but merely using them as an analogy. He's countering the claim that he percieves the "pseudo-skeptics" are making: "if something is unevidenced, it doesn't exist".He then shows us the coelecanth. Nobody knew it was there, there was no evidence for it, yet there it is! So obviously, sometimes unevidenced scenarios do indeed turn out to be correct.However, had RAZD come up to me and told me BEFORE the rediscovery of the Coelecanth, that he BELIEVED the Coelecanth still existed based on a hunch, I would not have believed him. In this case he would have turned out to be insanely lucky, and I would have been wrong. Should I have accepted his claim that the Coelecanth still existed? Should I accept the equally unevidenced claim that the Megalodon still lurks the murky depths of the ocean? No. Should I be agnostic about it? Maybe, but I sure as heck won't bet any money on it.Then again, maybe one day I'll be proven wrong...*Jaws theme*

Thank you Modulous for addressing the question raised in the OP. To those of Faith:Given Modulous' definition of faith, how can anyone justify using faith to find truth? Anyone willing to give it a shot? Would you like to try your own definition?Respectfully,Meldinoor

Hi again, Teapots&unicorns And the point that Straggler, among others, fails to understand, is that the absence of evidence is evidence of the absence of evidence.Coelacanth is a case in point, demonstrating that millions of years of absent evidence was only evidence of absent evidence. Now Straggler, among others, will point out that it is logical to believe that life exists on other planets (I can pull up old posts that state this if you need them). Thus your insistence on Oni-like temperment being unlikely may be incorrect even though this only applies to one specific individual. Certainly your insistence on such life being green could be incorrect (a large proportion of earth life is after all), and your description of such life being furry (which also applies to a lot of known life forms).Of course the more descriptions you add to the list, the more unlikely it will be that all of them will be realized in one alien life form, while, curiously, many different life forms could exist that all have the common attribute of life.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Meldinoor, I now give you the case of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, believed to have become extinct some time ago, while there are many people (birders) that believe that they survived in uninhabited swampy areas in Florida and Louisiana.Ivory-billed woodpecker - WikipediaAre they nuts, or is there a valid possibility that the absence of evidence is only evidence of the absence of evidence?Are they operating on faith?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi RAZD,It is quite probable that an animal that hasn't been sighted for a few years could still be around. It is also possible that an animal that once was known to exist might still do so. How probable is it that an entirely different kind of lifeform, say the purple-spotted walking fungus man, inhabits a given swamp? Once again, I won't bet my money on it, even if it's not impossible.Respectfully,Meldinoor

I'm sorry RAZD. I didn't address your question. They may be. If there's no evidence of this bird existing anymore, then I suppose they are operating on faith. But only if they believe the bird still exists, and live their lives accordingly. They can suspect as much as they want, but when they claim it does exist, they are making a faith statement.Respectfully,Meldinoor

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is the response of someone avoiding the question. Let's try again, shall we?

​

Why is it on the back of my hand showing tails? Do you have evidence that this isn't a coin? It isn't on my hand? It isn't showing tails? Look, I'm picking it up, flipping it, catching it, slapping it on the back of my hand. Now it's showing heads.

---

​

Curiously, your insistence on having the answer is your avoiding the issue of what you do when you don't yet have the answer.

---

Once again, avoiding the question. Let's try again, shall we?Why is it on the back of my hand showing tails? Do you have evidence that this isn't a coin? It isn't on my hand? It isn't showing tails? Look, I'm picking it up, flipping it, catching it, slapping it on the back of my hand. Now it's showing heads.You need to explain how it is that I am holding the coin on my hand, RAZD. As someone much wiser than me supposedly claimed, "Eppur si muove." You can whine all you want about uncertainty, but none of that changes the fact that I'm holding the coin you claim can't be held. And we'll continue to use it no matter how many times you say there is no way it could possibly be understood. Strange how something we know absolutely nothing about manages to be directly and purposefully manipulated by humans every single day.

quote:

---

Assuming that you know the answer is ignoring the reality that you don't know until the coin lands.

---

Ah, we're back to the creationist response of because we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything.Indeed, while I'm in the act of flipping the coin, I don't know if it will land heads or tails (assuming a fair toss...when I was really into my work as a magician, I could get a coin to land how I wanted most times). But the fact that I don't know if it will land heads or tails does not change the fact that I do know it will not land Ace of Spades. My incomplete knowledge is no impediment.But, of course, the fact that the coin has already landed and I'm looking right at it still seems to be your stumbling block. You continue to assume there is no evidence when the exact opposite is true.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Let's take it further. Since we apparently have no actual evidence for gravity ...

---

​

Which is not my argument.

---

Oh, but it is. You're the one complaining about "incomplete" models. Well, our model of gravity is woefully "incomplete." We still have absolutely no idea what gravity is, let alone how it manages to do what it does. You tried to claim that my argument couldn't possibly be valid because the model is "incomplete." Well, our model of gravity is one of the more "incomplete" ones we have. Therefore, your logic is that we should be "agnostic" about it. And thus, I await your arrival so we can test the courage of your convictions.Put up or shut up.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do tell what it is you think is outside the box? Oh, I'm sure there is something out there. After all, we don't know everything. But you seem to think you actually know something about what is outside of the box. Ergo, you must have evidence of it.

---

​

Curiously, my argument is precisely that we don't know what is outside the box.

---

But you're the one saying that there is a 50/50 chance of anything outside the box. And yet, that isn't true. Evidence from within the box along with evidence gathered from what happens when things move from outside the box to inside the box allow us to predict some things about what's outside. Oh, it isn't "complete" in any sense of the word, but every time we've examined something new, we have not found any sign of this undefined non-entity you keep insisting we must have an "I don't know" opinion about.

quote:

---

My argument is not that gravity may not exist, rather it is that there is no explanation for why it exists, and that having any number of theories on HOW GRAVITY WORKS still fails to even consider the question of why it exists.

---

You pretend that "why" is even a question that is capable of being asked. Instead, it is a nonsensical question.Why do you assume there is a "why"?

quote:

---

And again, I do not demand sprinkles

---

Every time you deny the evidence, you do. Every time you say that there is "no evidence," you do. Every time you deny that the model works, including your whine that it is "incomplete," you do. Every time you project your own failings onto others (really...how many times can you accuse everybody else "cognitive dissonance" before even you realize that it's becoming sad?) you do.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

quote:

---

I just point out that you cannot eliminate the possibility that they may be needed

---

In an ineffective philosophical sense? Of course. Science is tentative, after all. We can never know if our model is truly correct. We can only hope for accuracy with all known observations.But until you can show that the model is wrong, it is irrational to insist upon "agnosticism" regarding it in any way. The null hypothesis is always considered true until evidence is presented to show otherwise.Where is your evidence?

quote:

---

because your model is incomplete

---

...means absolutely nothing. If you think otherwise, I await your arrival so we can test your agnosticism regarding gravity...one of the more "incomplete" models we have.

quote:

---

And yet you get the details wrong. Not as badly as Straggler who now has invented a false impression of my argument out of thin air, but still pretty bad for someone claiming to pay attention.

---

Said the man who refuses to answer questions. I've been paying very close attention, RAZD. That's why the same questions keep coming up. Until you answer them, they'll keep getting asked.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

quote:

---

And still we have the problem of the total lack of any definition of this evidence that is so prevalent.

---

You deny the existence of the model? Why do you deny this evidence?

quote:

---

So where is the evidence that god/s do not, or cannot, exist?

---

Until you define what "god" is, how is that a question that makes any sort of sense? You keep insisting that people must have an agnostic position about something you refuse to define. That is logically impossible. If you cannot define it, you cannot hold this beloved "I don't know" of yours.You define "god" first and then I'll show you what evidence there is.This goes back to my statement to many creationists who have fallen for the fallacy that the only to options are their theology and atheism: Consider the possibility that god does exist, but not in the way you think. If your definition of "god" includes the claim that life, the universe, and everything were made approximately 6000 years ago, then we have plenty of evidence that this "god" does not exist. That doesn't mean there isn't any definition of "god" that is compatible with what we have seen. There are plenty of definitions of "god" that don't include that claim.It is not the responsibility of the person saying "god" doesn't exist to define what "god" is. Instead, that burden lies completely and utterly on the person claiming that "god" does exist. The person who claims something doesn't exist would never even bother with making such a statement until after someone claims that it does.After all, even negative claims require evidence but evidence cannot be gathered until a definition is put forward. Thus, it is your responsibility to define what you mean by "god."You've been asked to do so for literally thousands of posts and yet you still have remained silent.Thus, without a definition of "god" to go on, we fall back to the null hypothesis: A non-entity does not exist.

quote:

---

Why do you keep avoiding this issue while claiming to have evidence?

---

Said the man who refuses to answer questions.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

quote:

---

And the astute reader will know that I have previously stated this as well, so you are not telling me anything new, and you are not countering my argument. If you have followed my argument/s why are you not aware of this?

---

Because you repeat the same refuted points. This is the other reason why the merry-go-round keeps spinning. Subjective "evidence" is not evidence of any kind. It can inspire you to ask questions, but they are no different from flights of fancy and thus, it isn't evidence of anything.

quote:

---

I've said it is incomplete, and you concur

---

And thus, you prove the point I just stated: Repetition of refuted points.I do not deny it is incomplete. But I do not fall for the creationist fallcy you have: That we don't know everything does not mean we don't know anything.If you truly think that the model is incomplete is an impediment, then I heartily await your arrival so we can put your money where your mouth is in regard to the woefully "incomplete" model of gravity that we have.Put up or shut up.

quote:

---

Thus my claiming that the model is incomplete should not set you on a rampage of claiming falsehoods about my position, not just in posts to me, but in posts to others as well.

---

Huh? What "falsehood about your position" has been made? Did you or did you not claim that because the model is "incomplete," that is a problem?Well, our model of gravity is "incomplete." Therefore, you must be "agnostic" about it, too. If you insist a different outcome with regard to gravity than you do with regard to this undefined "god" non-entity of yours, then you are engaged in the logical fallacy of special pleading.Which was what we showed you were doing thousands of posts ago.

quote:

---

and so mostly see your pro-atheist positions on the evolution threads.

---

No, not "pro-atheist." Instead, I point out that the theological complaints against atheism that are brought up don't have any justification. I don't need to show that two and two equal four in order to show that they don't equal five.

quote:

---

Why do you think this question has not been answered?

---

Because you haven't shown how the model fails. "Incomplete" is not failure. If it is, then I await your arrival so we can put your convictions to the test regarding this "incomplete" model of gravity we have.Again, if you think there is a difference between these models, then you are engaging in special pleading.

quote:

---

I've answered it several times, and my answer has not varied.

---

Indeed, but your answer has been shown to be insufficient every single time you raise it. Therefore, the question remains unanswered.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

quote:

---

The model addresses "how" questions but not "why" questions, because science is not suited for investigating the "why" questions.

---

You assume that "why" is even a question that can be asked. Where is your evidence that there is a "why"?

quote:

---

quote:

---

t is logically impossible to have even an "I don't know" opinion about something that has not been and cannot be described.

---

​

Amusingly, what you are complaining about is not knowing. Thus you make my point that the default position is not knowing.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Wow...I say, "black," and you insist that I just said, "white." I point out that no, I really meant "black" and yet you continue to insist that what I said was "white."You can have no position, and most especially this precious "I don't know" of yours, about anything that you don't have a definition for. And since you refuse to define what it is that you mean when you say, "god," it is impossible to be "agnostic" about it. Instead the only logical claim is "atheistic" since the null position is that non-entities don't exist. With no definition, this "god" of yours is a non-entity.

quote:

---

Once you hear a concept it interacts with your world view

---

Nice try, but that's my argument to you. Definitions create evidence precisely because that definition places it in context with all the evidence that has previously been collected.But you refuse to define what on earth you're talking about when you say, "god." Therefore, no interaction can take place and you can't even say, "I don't know." "I don't know" requires a comparison to the evidence that exists and coming away with no good way to decide either way. With no definition forthcoming, that comparison cannot take place and thus, you can't even say, "I don't know."

quote:

---

This is where confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance interact with the concepts.

---

There's the magic phrase. You just can't help yourself, can you? Accuse everybody else of "cognitive dissonance" and all's right with the world.

quote:

---

Given that I HAVE answered this question

---

You've given a response, not an answer. "The model is incomplete" is not an answer because it is not evidence of the model failing. Prove me wrong: Come on down and show us just how "agnostic" you are regarding the woefully "incomplete" model of gravity that we have.If you balk, you're guilty of special pleading.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

quote:

---

The model is incomplete

---

Irrelevant. Gravity is "incomplete" and you don't whine about it. Thus, you are guilty of special pleading.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

quote:

---

I don't demand sprinkles

---

Your insistence that the model is a failure because it is "incomplete" is precisely a demand for chocolate sprinkles. That's why I keep asking you for your evidence that they are required. The model seems to work without them.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

quote:

---

And I've replied that this does not show why the car exists.

---

Which is a non sequitur. You assume that "why" is even a question that can be asked. It is nonsensical.

quote:

---

I find it humorous that you use an example of a designed object to suggest that the model works.

---

Huh? Are you implying that the car was made by this undefined "god" non-entity of yours? Because I'm pretty sure it was made by the Japanese. "God" is Japanese?At any rate, the car's existence is in complete conformity to the model. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

quote:

---

The car works because it was designed to work, built to work, and purchased because it works.

---

Incorrect. The car works because the various parts of the engine are moving in specific, defined ways. There's a piston going up and down, various valves releasing a fuel/air mixture, exhaust is coming out of the tailpipe, etc.You know...all that "evidence" you claim doesn't exist.

quote:

---

Cars that don't work are junked.

---

Or fixed. Are you saying that "god" fixes them? Where is your evidence?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

quote:

---

From this perspective, you are unable to distinguish between cars that work and those that don't work

---

Huh? Of course I can. When I release the brake, put it in gear, and press down on the accelerator, it moves forward. I can put on the brake, put in reverse, and it moves backward. Ergo, it works.

quote:

---

if they are not running at the time, because your model is incomplete

---

Huh? You mean my inspection of the car from the last time it was being used and finding no differences isn't evidence that it still works? You keep pretending that there isn't any evidence despite the fact that we have mountains of it.

quote:

---

you cannot tell from your lack of details whether one will run and another will not.

---

Huh? Where did this silly idea that I have a "lack of details" come from? I have literally mountains of evidence that the car still runs even though it isn't running right now. Not only do I have the evidence from this specific car, I have all the evidence from all the other cars regarding how a working car appears. This specific car conforms to that description, ergo we have every reason to think that it works and no evidence against it.By your logic, you must be scared shitless every time you get into a car. After all, there's absolutely no evidence that it works.Prove me wrong, RAZD: Come on down and we'll test this "I don't know" attitude of yours with that relentlessly "incomplete" model of gravity that we have. If you balk, you're guilty of special pleading.Put up or shut up.

quote:

---

The question here that your model cannot answer is not how gravity works, but why does gravity exist.

---

You pretend that that question makes any sense. Where is your evidence that "why" is a rational question in this context?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

quote:

---

Some of the explanations are getting down to rather bizarre concepts that might be considered magical in older times - can you guarantee that sprinkles aren't going to be needed?

---

Not my burden. You're the one demanding them, so you're the one that needs to provide evidence to justify them. The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

quote:

---

The model is incomplete.

---

Irrelevant. Unless you're willing to let me toss you off a very high place because you are "agnostic" regarding the woefully "incomplete" model of gravity, you're just engaging in special pleading.

quote:

---

Assuming that new knowledge will fit snugly in the model is logically invalid

---

On the contrary, it is the only logically valid position. The null hypothesis is always considered true until evidence is shown otherwise. Do you have evidence that shows otherwise?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

quote:

---

assuming that the part is representative of the whole.

---

The model is representative of the whole as it is the culmination of all the evidence. Do you have new evidence?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

Coelacanths. Guess they just didn't exist for over 65 million years.

---

Huh? There was evidence that they existed. After all, they existed previously. We know that organisms that existed in the past can continue to exist in the future as well as the fact that the ocean is a difficult place to examine, therefore our claim that they went extinct was tentative. It was not that bizarre to find them still around. Shocked the hell out of a lot of people, yes, but it wasn't like we showed that gravity didn't really exist.Note, we had a definition of what a "coelacanth" was to put to the test.So far, you haven't deigned to provide a similar definition of what this "god" non-entity of yours is.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

There is evidence that woodpeckers exist.
There is evidence that species can go unnoticed - especially given certain circumstances (low population, limited to small or difficult to access area, highly mobile, small, difficult to distinguish from related species etc etc).
There is evidence that when people say 'I saw such-a-species.', they are sometimes correct and that ornithologists or avid amateurs are more reliable sources for species identification than an average person.
There is evidence that the Ivory-billed woodpecker has existed.Seems to me that there is good evidence that increases the likelihood of the Ivory billed woodpecker being a currently existing species from total skepticism up the ladder of confidence. There is definitely not an absense of evidence in this case. I'm fairly sure that all of this has been mentioned before.

Buz being open minded isn't simply a question of believing what you want to believe simply because it has been designed to be inherently irrefutable.As for the coelacanth.......Do we know that such a creature is physically able to exist given the appropriate environment? Yes we do. Because we knew it did exist.On what similar evidential basis do we conclude that deistic gods are able to exist? Or are we just guessing that they are even a possibility because they cannot actually be refuted? You (and RAZD) are conflating low probabilty with unevidenced possibility. The two are not the same.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.