If it can be, how can the "Absence of Evidence" be "Evidence of Absence?".

How many times do we have to declare this? Yes a possibility. A possibility in exactly the same way that any other disprovable concept is a possibility. There is much evidence to suggest that gods are human inventions. No it doesn't. No ICANT. Because they magicked you into existence along with the rest of the universe with a fully complete set of memories. You cannot disprove this. Thus it is a possibility. But in all probability it is just an invented concept. Just like gods. To demonstrate that you can? That is the nicest thing anyone has said to me today.

Thanks. I'll take that as the closest thing I am ever likely to get from you as an apology for your ridiculous "liar liar" tirade.So the validity (or otherwise) of subjective evidence is rather fundamental to your anti-atheist arguments. What a shock! I must be psychic to have realised that before you did. Or maybe you weren't being entirely truthful in your flashing scrolling campaign of denial?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Fix quote box

All your stated criteria for "High Confidence" on your much vaunted "Scale of Belief" have been met by the human invention argument. You can equivocate as much as you like. You can talk about "proof" as much as you like. But it won't change this fact. You used to be a faith based deist disclaiming the need for logic in matters of belief. Now you are a wannabe Vulcan agnostic with opinions. What happened? More equivocation? And I have noted that you still cannot prove that the Easter Bunny, jolly magical Santa, the Tooth Fairy or a whole host of other equally disprovable irrefutable concepts "do not, or cannot, exist". But you are presumably not requiring that we be rationally agnostic towards the actual existence of these concepts? Thus you have no point worth making. I don't need to prove anything. This is about evidence. Not pure logic. As such we can only talk in terms of probability and likelihood. Until you stop translating evidence based positions into statements of logical certitude it is you who is destined to persevere with fallacious and irrelevant counter-arguments. With regard to your well refuted position on the validity of "subjective evidence":1) You remain blatantly unable to confront the substantial problems with having any confidence in any form of Immaterial "Evidence".2) This is just another god of the gaps argument. As has been discussed many times before.3) Your assumption that religious experiences are due to the actual existence of gods amounts to nothing more than the circular argument of citing belief as evidence upon which to justify belief.The existence of gods is but one of the possible causes for humans having religious experiences. One of the unevidenced possible causes. Along with telepathic dogs infiltrating our brains, fluctuations in the matrix designed to control rebellious minds, magic moonbeams, thetan plots to take over the Earth and every single one of the other conceivable possible causes that could explain subjective human experiences believed to be caused by gods. All possibilities which have absolutely no factual basis whatsoever. Do you agree that these are all equally objectively unevidenced? And thus equally unlikely? Or are you special pleading the possibility of gods as superior in any way as an answer to the question of why humans believe in gods? If so on what grounds? Be specific.On the other hand we could consider the evidenced possibility of the commonality of human psychology. We could seek a naturalistic answer as to why people have such experiences. We could see your entire "subjective evidence" argument as just yet another gap in which you have unjustifiably inserted your god. Given the unmitigated failure of the supernatural explanatory model that would be the rational course of action. Would it not?Your immaterial subjective evidence arguments have been well and widely refuted in previous threads. The fact you have had to raise them from the dead again despite previously stating that these arguments have "NOTHING to do with deities" just highlights the ever increasing paucity of your position.Enjoy.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and formatting

If it convinces you to the point of having no choice why do you need to go round claiming that it is "evidenced" in some way and demanding that others be rationally agnostic about it?

So which parts do you think RAZD and I agree on...?Which parts do we disagree on.....? The nature of evidence? The nature of faith? The entirety of human history and knowledge? nothing that significant then?Be specific. Because I am genuinely intrigued as to a third party perspective on this.