Pseudoskepticism and logic

The most recent message you supply the list, therefore I reply to that message.I would file myself somewhere around 6 - Now you are looking for "proof" of why I hold this position. I hold this position because I find no reason to hold the opposing position. I find there to be a total lack of evidence for God's existence.Now of course, this falls into the category of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".In the fossil evidence debate, creationists raise the point of the lack of transitionals fossil evidence. To which one reply could be that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". But in that case it is not a total lack of evidence situation. Rather is is a gap in a chain of evidence. Such gaps are to be expected, and it is also expected that at least some of the gaps will later be filled. Thus I find the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to be legitimate.For God on the other hand, there is not the situation of being gaps in a chain of evidence. There is a total lack of what I would find to be compelling evidence. Thus I find the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to be illegitimate. The phrase mutates into "TOTAL absence of evidence IS evidence of absence".Moose

Almost all the concepts of god that we deal with involves a god that has and/or has had some direct influence on the state of things Earth. The exception seems to be your deistic god who, as I understand it, hasn't done a thing since that little matter of starting the up universe some 13.5 billion years ago. For me, a god 13.5 billion years removed transcends theistic/atheistic considerations. I'm flat out "apathistic".Now, we have done a pretty rigorous exploration of the past and present things Earth, without finding compelling evidence in support of gods existence. You, being a deist, apparently have the same viewpoint.Thus my statement in the above quoted.Moose

You have a problem with that? Why should I find that other 99.9+% of space-time to have any relevance to my theistic considerations? How does it effect my existence? A God with an activity record only in some distant location or time of the universe has no Earthly significance.Moose

In my previous first of three messages in this topic, I had argued that "TOTAL absence of evidence IS evidence of absence".Now, I'm presuming that all of the science side will accept that considerations of the supernatural are, by definition, outside of the realm of study via methodological naturalism. In generally has been said that "science is agnostic".I now argue that there is, by definition, a total absence of methodological naturalisticly derived evidence for anything filed under "the supernatural". This goes beyond "nothing yet has been found". Rather it is, "there is nothing (by definition) to be found".Thus, from the scientific perspective, the supernatural does not exist - The scientific method is atheistic.Which does not say that a person who does science (aka "a scientist") must be an atheist outside of when s/he is doing science.Moose