Identifying false religions.

You have (apparently) proven that no un-evidenced and un-falsified conclusion can be rationally considered to be improbable.The conclusion that the God of biblical Christianity is soon to invoke Judgement Day and having done so will reveal why it is that the 9,000 year old Earth appears to be so much older is one such un-evidenced and unfalsified conclusion.So you have proven that considering this scenario to be improbable is irrational.Which means that you have proven that it is irrational to conclude that the Earth is almost certainly billions of years old. Because it cannot be almost certainly billions of years old without it simultaneously being the case that the 9.000 year old scenario is highly improbable.We can apply the same sort of un-evidenced and unfalsifiable alternative to every single scientific conclusion you can name. Which means that you have (apparently) proven we can never actually know anything with any degree of certainty that surpasses anything you class as mere opinion. No matter how well evidenced it may appear to be.Because there is always an un-evidenced and unfalsified alternative available. And we can never rationally deem any of these to be improbable.As you have proved......(apparently)

You have accused me of misrepresenting your position. In order to clear this up could you answer the questions asked of you? I shall repeat them again here before answering your latest question at the bottom of this post. Yes let's. You quite clearly stated that you deemed it both rational and logical to consider the actual existence of any empirically unevidenced entity to be "highly improbable". Message 317 and Message 321Is a Deist God "empirically unevidenced"?
Is a Deist God thus "highly improbable"? I consider them to be evidence of belief in that which is being written about. Nothing more.Is that rationally or logically unreasonable?

Huh? How on Earth is the definition of a deistic god I provided you with anything but empirically un-evidenced? "Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s, or is off doing other things" Message 225Except that by your very own self procliamed consistent criteria it is both rational to consider any empirically un-evidenced entity to be "highly improbable" AND irrational to deny this improbability.Your view on deistic gods of the type defined seems to be yet another of your irrational personal beliefs. Which is fine. Just let's not pretend otherwise shall we? On what basis?

No. You originally replied to the definition I gave of a desitic god as supplied by RAZD in the context of you and I discussing what seemed to be the incompatibility of you claiming to agree with RAZD's position. So why are you now avoiding stating your position on the necessarily empirically un-evidenced desitic god as defined in the original question?I will ask again: Is the definition of a deistic god I provided you with anything but empirically un-evidenced?Is such an entity therefore, by your own definitions, "highly improbable"?

Are you actually disagreeing that something which has been defined to be unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s is anything other than empirically un-evidenced?For heavens sake this would seem to be as simple a question as one could ask. Why will you not just answer it? Well why don't you answer the question in relation to the deist god I was talking about and then we can happily move on to the one you are talking about?That seems fair.

Don't be dishonest RAZ. You know full well that nobody is arguing that because Santa Claus is a human invention that anything else must also be a human invention. Please desist from this pathetic straw-man of yours.You know full well that what is being said is that any entity which is empirically imperceptible (of which magically undetectable Santa is one example) cannot have been derived by means of any perception of external reality.So you tell me - If they are unable to be empirically perceived where can notions of "unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s" gods originate? Where but the human mind?Even if we allow for the philosophical possibility that by some miracle of coincidence your imagined entity does indeed actually exist. Beyond that which is explainable by commonality of human psychology and culture - No. Beyond that you need to confront the problems with Immaterial "Evidence"Anyway - I know you are not bringing up subjective "evidence". Because I know that the validity or otherwise of subjective "evidence" has "NOTHING to do with deities" Message 402Or were you lying?And you still haven't tackled the fact that you have (apparently) proven yourself to absolutely agnostic about absolutely everything Message 381Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Just to be unequivocally clear here - You agree both that an "unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception" deistic god is necessarily empirically unevidenced and thus rationally and logically the actual existence of this entity is to be considered "highly improbabe".Yes?As per your comments here - Message 317 and Message 321.Once we have agreement on this unequivocally tied up I guarantee that I will move on to consider this textual evidence you speak of in relation to the deistic god you have defined.

You are actually claiming that an "unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception" deistic god can be empirically evidenced aren't you?If that is your position why not just state it? Why the resistance? Why the ambiguity?Do you think it sounds a bit mental to believe that something defined as "outside of our perception" can also be empirically evidenced?It seems that even some of the most self-aware theists have limits to the contradictions that they will openly accept.

Is it rational and reasonable to consider the existence of hobbits as evidenced based on the 'Lord of the Rings' text?If not why not?Be specific.

Are biblical creationists rational and reasonable?

Well which ones are and which ones are not? What is the defining difference between the two? So you are essentially claiming to know something that they (the rational creationists) do not?If so - What is it that you know but that they do not?

Subjective "evidence".Obviously........

Even if they believe themselves to be honest? So basically you consider it reasonable and rational to accept things on the basis of personal need even if they contradict objective forms of evidence?

This is a bit of a side issue - and I am not even sure I disagree with you on this - but I am intrigued to know how you think someone who thinks they are being honest can be dishonest? Does it ultimately boil down to being dishonest with oneself? So if someone had some sort of emotional need to believe in the actual existence of Middle Earth hobbits you would consider it rational and reasonable for them to believe in the actual existence of Middle Earth hobbits?

Question: If the specific god under consideration is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable how can it have originated as a human concept from anywhere other than the internal workings of the human mind?Answer: It cannot.Question: Can the deistic notion of god as previously described by RAZD - "Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s, or is off doing other things" Message 225 - possibly be empirically perceptible?Answer: Quite obviously not.Thus we have refuted this particular class of gods as necessarily the products of human invention. Refuted to the same extent that any other unfalsifiable imperceptible fantasy we can pluck from the collective arse of humanity has been refuted as made-up. Even allowing for the philosophical possibility that by some miracle of coincidence the imagined entity in question does indeed actually exist.As for these empirically detectable gods - Well I would request that those prone to the much vaunted subjective expereinces take up the "Catch a God on a Camera Phone" challenge Message 278