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

A is all existing deer that we know to be born from other animals because we have witnessed their birth; B is all existing deer.Because of our small sample, and because there are no known exceptions, we can infer that all existing deer are born from other animals with a high degree of confidence.A is all supernatural beings known to be human inventions; B is all proposed supernatural beings.Because of our small sample, and because there are no known exceptions, we can infer that all proposed supernatural beings are born of the human mind with a high degree of confidence.Certainly, it would be very improbable that any deer taken at random wouldn't fit the norm.Certainly, it would be very improbable that any supernatural being taken at random wouldn't fit the norm.Where have we heard that phrase "very improbable" before?

Nope. If you'd thought before posting, and realized that "small" is a relative term, then you'd have saved yourself a lot of time. A is small relative to B. The number of organisms we witness coming into existence is a minute fraction of the whole, but, as you agree, we can infer that all modern organisms come from other organisms. The same within deer, which I chose in isolation to keep things simple.Now, compare "all deer are born from animals" or "all modern organisms are born from other organisms" with "all supernatural beings are born of the human imagination", another way of phrasing my theory that all supernatural beings are human inventions.We can look at all the many different supernatural beings credited with creation of the world, and see that invention is the norm.ForbiddenWe can also look at modern invention in fantasy novels where we find a very good sample of supernatural beings which are deliberately invented to entertain. This does not mean that the invented supernatural beings are not believed in. Here are people debating the existence of Rowling's Harry Potter, just as we debate the existence of RAZD's deity.So, plenty of evidence for invention, but no verification of the actual existence of any single supernatural being, just as we have plenty of evidence for deer coming into the world by being born naturally, and no verification of a single one popping into existence by magic.Now, it doesn't matter that we haven't witnessed the birth of the overwhelming majority of deer, or that we don't know the specific origins of many of the supernatural beings that are and have been believed in. Remember that it would be no good examining a deer for molecular evidence when we're talking about the supernatural. A magically created deer would be a deer, and could appear just like any other.This is where you supernaturalists have problems. In order to make the type of arguments that you make against naturalistic theories, you need to falsify theories like mine, and establish the existence of the supernatural.Pointing out that scientific theories are human inventions is correct. They are not supposed to have an existence outside our minds. They are explanations. It is the evidence that supports them that comes from repeatable observations of real phenomena. Your translation of "supernatural beings" into "explanations" is invalid. They are not all supposed to explain things. When they are used to explain things, we have supernatural ideas, like "god did it" or "the fairies did it". These cannot be turned into theories without evidence. The mechanisms "god" and "fairies" are apparent human inventions according to my very strong theory.An idea like "fairies created the universe" does not gain a near 50/50 probability in the minds of rational people merely because it has been proposed and cannot be disproved. There is no current scientific theory of the ultimate origins and nature of the universe, because of the inherent difficulty of researching that area.If anyone were to suggest that something of unknown origin was created ex nihilo by an elf, or that something was created ex nihilo by a god, I would reply, with consistency, "I cannot know, but I think that it's very improbable". This is partly because the theory that all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination is a very strong one, matches all the data, and has not been falsified.Now, falsify my theory, or stop criticizing those who believe that the creation of the universe by an apparent figment of the human imagination is very improbable.The theory makes many predictions. Obama will not turn out to be the antichrist, and RAZD will not be able to present positive evidence that supports the existence of his deity, for just two examples. Edited by bluegenes, : changed faulty URL for cache

No. Read my post again. The theories that all modern organisms are born from other organisms and that all supernatural beings are born of the human imagination are built on evidence. What begging the question would be is making a statement like: All supernatural beings require human invention; therefore all supernatural beings are human inventions. The conclusion is assumed.The theories are strong theories because they have good evidential support and have never been falsified. Like evolutionary theory, they are not logical "proofs". They can be falsified by observations. Would you care to attempt to falsify my theory that all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination and do not exist in reality?Don't confuse ideas like "god did it" for the actual beings. You seem to agree that such ideas are human products, but the beings themselves are the mechanisms behind such ideas, just as variation and selection are mechanisms of the theory of evolution. Their existence needs to be verified if you want to build theories around them. Cheese is cheese. Fairies aren't really gods. I agree entirely that "either gods created the universe or they did not." Either universe making machines created the universe, or they did not. Either the the universe was created inadvertently by the fart of a celestial cow, or it was not. Either the universe was formed by the collision of two five dimensional rocks, or it was not.None of these ideas became 50/50 propositions without evidence to support them. Your promotion of the "god/s" idea to that level without supporting evidence is unwarranted. What about the universe being formed by an extra-universal mega-dimensional cheese (of any kind that might be known in the future) rotting? How many 50s do you count in 100?Your comments on omphalism seem to imply that you have managed to put the biblical ~6,500 yr omphalist god on a Dawkins "6" level at last. Congratulations, you old pseudoskeptic. And who's eliminating the possibility? Do you still not understand the description of the "6" position? Universe creating gods are possible, just as universe creating cheeses are possible, with all the endless lists of individual possible but very unlikely cheeses we can make up.Look at what you're saying above, and it seems that you are now at least coming around to the idea that some individual described gods might be "very improbable".