Ground Rules

Hey RAZ. Me again. Happy to see me? EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
Obviously unless one accepts the validity of non-empirical evidence non-empirical gods cannot be evidenced at all. Period. Subjectively, objectively or anyotherectively. If one restricts oneself to empirical evidence then no one non-empirical concept is any more or less evidenced than any other. Thus the Immaterial Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, ethereal toilet goblins, demons, fairies, ghosts, gods, deities, Zeus, Apollo, Vishnu, Wagwah, leprechauns and the undetectable face sucking jellyfish are all necessarily as unevidenced as any other inherently non-empirical and scientifically unknowable concept.HUMAN INVENTION
On the other side of the argument we have a great deal of empirical and validated evidence that suggests that gods and other supposedly unknowable entities are in fact the products of human invention. The human capacity for invention and creativity seems to be almost infinite. This is a remarkable and wondrous thing. However it is also something of an impediment to reliably drawing conclusions about the nature of objective reality. Humanity has a long track record of inventing supposedly unknowable entities that have subsequently been made redundant and even refuted as knowledge regarding the natural empirical world has progressed. Given the indisputable need for answers, comfort, meaning and purpose that forms a common feature of humanity does anyone really think that gods and other "unknowable" entities would not be invented by humans? Whether any actually exist or not?DISBELIEF
Given that any belief in any specific inherently non-empirical entity must logically be unevidenced (unless one accepts forms of non-empirical evidence as indicators of reality external to the mind - which opens a whole new kettle of fishy worms) and given that there is objective evidence to suggest that gods and the like are the product of human invention we must evidentially, rationally and logically conclude that all such concepts are in all probability "made up". Thus a degree of doubt, a degree of disbelief, a degree of "atheism" is the evidential, rational and logical conclusion towards all such non-empirical concepts.FAITH
Therefore if anyone chooses to believe in any one such non-empirical concept whilst denying the existence of others this must be a matter of faith. Unevidenced, irrational, illogical faith. That is fine. I personally have no problem with faith in itself. My problem is with those who insist that the non-empirical objects of their faith are evidentially justified in some way. This is simply confirmation bias borne from wholly subjective personal conviction that what one believes is actually true. The need to evidence ones beliefs can be incredibly powerful.CONCLUSION
All non-empirical concepts are equally unevidenced. Unless a form of non-empirical evidence can be demonstrated to be any more reliable than just guessing, gods and other concepts that are inherently unable to be evidenced empirically must evidentially and rationally be considered to be (in all likelihood) products of the human mind. With no basis in external reality. Commonality of concept across separate cultures is best explained by common human needs, desires, emotions and psychology. In effect gods and other such concepts are inevitable products of the "human condition".EnjoyEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.