Evidence for God

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

So now the texts were written by created men. Darwinism only pertains to humans not writing text. Thats good.

Oh, and by the way? This sentence makes no sense. Evolution produced human beings. Human beings wrote the Bible. The Bible is full of empirical claims. Many - possibly the majority - of those empirical claims are false.

 

[Greg1234]

Greg, let's clarify one thing: my position is not based on any assumptions about the writers regarding their technological level. None. No matter how many times you bring this up, I am not discussing the authors, their technical achievements, or their level of sophistication. History - AND THE BIBLE, BY THE WAY - tell us that they were pastoral semi-nomads with an iron age culture. That is fact. But that fact says nothing about whether or not the things they wrote in the Bible are true. Nothing.

What tells us that things in the Bible are true or false is our ability to cross-check them against external, empirical facts. These external, empirical facts tell us that most of Genesis 1-11 is false.

Not based on anything we know or don't know about the authors. Nothing.

No, you brought up the technological level in another attempt to divert. First you attempted to link goat herders as evidence for your belief. Now you attempt to link the iron age. Technological aptitude of the day, in fact, has nothing to do with divine inspiration. Nor do goat herders in a nearby field. Your "evidence" is not relevant now, nor is your "cross check", caps lock notwithstanding. That disregard should be enabled pertaining to the competence of the writers as given in text, is a belief.

For the rest see last post.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

[FONT=&quot]I think if we are talking in purely objectively scientific manner, claims of God are neither falsifiable nor verifiable. Which means evidence can’t be offer either way. Most people immediately jump over this and try to say you should default disbelieve positive ontological non-verifiable claims but that’s only when they are also falsifiable, concepts like the burden of evidence don’t even really apply here.[/FONT]

It's still a claim though. Non-committal is the default stance for any claim, no? That the claim is (or, at least, might be) fundamentally untestable doesn't change that.

[FONT=&quot]I believe God isn’t falsifiable because omnipotence with omniscience means if God didn’t want a scientifically verifiable way to discover him, there wouldn’t be one. (Note I’m not claiming God does or doesn’t want this, just the possibility that God could do this is enough for non-falsifiable)[/FONT]

But if he wants this, he is falsifiable. It may not be practical to falsify a claim, especially if God himself is actively preventing it, but it's still falsifiable in principle.

[FONT=&quot]I believe God isn’t verifiable because omnipotence entails that logical contradictions are contingent. No logical argument can imply a contingent logical contradiction. [/FONT]

Well, I suppose that depends on how you define 'omnipotence'. I made a thread in EC about that; I got an interesting spectrum of opinions.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

No, you brought up the technological level in another attempt to divert. First you attempted to link goat herders as evidence for your belief. Now you attempt to link the iron age. Technological aptitude of the day, in fact, has nothing to do with divine inspiration. Nor do goat herders in a nearby field. Your "evidence" is not relevant now, nor is your "cross check", caps lock notwithstanding. That disregard should be enabled pertaining to the competence of the writers as given in text, is a belief.

For the rest see last post.

Greg, you're simply not listening.

I don't know who the authors of the bible were. But I am not basing my arguments on who they were. Only on what they wrote. Nothing else. And what they wrote is, in many cases, provably wrong.

 

[Greg1234]

Greg, you're simply not listening.

I don't know who the authors of the bible were. But I am not basing my arguments on who they were. Only on what they wrote. Nothing else. And what they wrote is, in many cases, provably wrong.

Your judgment on what they wrote is based on what you regard as the application of evidence, which you uphold as evidence for your belief.

What you do, does not affect their status as depicted. How your "evidence" is applied does not change whether their competence is of a spiritual influence. That their competence and the conditions about and within (as given) should be disregarded (because of your "evidence"), is your belief. This is not about the application of your evidence to what they wrote. Only that the disregarding of the conditions as given within said authors based on what you regard as contrary evidence, is a belief.

No amount of debating and exegesis affects whether or not the authors were spiritually influenced. That who they were (men under the influence of a higher power) is to be dismissed, warranting your position as that of disregard, is a belief.

Your evidence is not universally held, nor applied. And your dismissal of conditions as given is a belief.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Your judgment on what they wrote is based on what you regard as the application of evidence, which you uphold as evidence for your belief.

As do you. We both apply evidence and reason to our understanding of the Bible. Agreed.

What you do, does not affect their status as depicted.

I don't follow this - could you explain? Whose status? What is that status? How do you know what that status is?

How your "evidence" is applied does not change whether their competence is of a spiritual influence.

Not necessarily. If they tell me things about the world that are false, am I entitled to conclude that they are not divinely inspired?

That their competence and the conditions about and within (as given) should be disregarded (because of your "evidence"), is your belief.

Why? Again - if someone claims to be divinely inspired (and by the way - you don't know that the authors were divinely inspired. In many cases, they didn't even claim to be inspired.) and makes false claims, aren't we entitled to judge how accurate they are? Or are you claiming they can be divinely inspired and still wrong?

This is not about the application of your evidence to what they wrote. Only that the disregarding of the conditions as given within said authors based on what you regard as contrary evidence, is a belief.

Nope. Can't get that. Please try again.

No amount of debating and exegesis affects whether or not the authors were spiritually influenced. That who they were (men under the influence of a higher power) is to be dismissed, warranting your position as that of disregard, is a belief.

I've said nothing at all about whether they were divinely inspired. All I can say is that they're wrong.

Your evidence is not universally held, nor applied. And your dismissal of conditions as given is a belief.

What conditions? And my evidence is held by all scientists. Some people simply refuse to accept it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So what? You probably know where this argument is heading (or where it always has been).

Again, you said man is evidence of God in the same way working radios are evidence of radio waves - i.e., the only explanation for a working radio is the existence of radio waves. The problem with this analogy is that God is not the only explanation for man; there are others. So you have yet to substantiate your claim that man is evidence of God. That's my point.

"Thats nice. Over simplification. It is not the fact that radios work that is disputed. But how they work, the nature of the radios, and the manifestation of radio waves as the phenomenon, voice on the radio.. Similarly, it is the fact that "humans work" that is disputed. But the nature of man, the manifestation of God with man as the reflection in this plane. Thats where the dispute is. Not merely that the radio or the man works.
In Darwinism it is not. The little men in the radio is the substitute. In theism it is, therefore your request for evidence for God being provided as man being rejected on the grounds of how the radio works in your persuasion is not relevant until I believe in the little men. I'm not a TE, and the man is evidence for God. Hence you should refine your request for evidence for God to "evidence for God[in kneeled reverence for random mutations as your creator]". "Or evidence for radio waves [while recognizing that the voice on the radio is made by little men]". And we will go from there.

No. My request stands, and you've yet to demonstrate that man is evidence of God.

Saying I don't know would still require dismissal of the author. You are on a beach and you get an appliance. On the back of it, it says "Made in China". You have no way of verifying this claim but you head back to the camp and say, "we don't know where this appliance was made". You have automatically debased the origins of the package. Latently disregarded it not based on evidence, but on your belief that the stamp is unreliable.
Saying that the Harry Potter series is written by "Lord Voldemort himself" is a belief. Debasing the authorship of JK Rowling as the author, is based on the belief that the authorship as presented is fraudulent, or incompetent or untrustworthy, which then spawns the "of disputed authorship".

The authorship of JK Rowling isn't disputed because her claims are verified. The claim "Made in China" could very well be false. The sheer existence of the claim means nothing. The reason we believe the "Made in China" claim is because that claim is very much substantiated: we know that many things are indeed made in China, and there's a very strong chance that this item was also made there. The existence of trading standards and advertisement laws also bolsters the case that the item's claim is, in fact, true.

You're conflating your claim ("God exists") with other claims ("Made in China"), and saying that because we don't doubt the latter, we shouldn't doubt yours either. The fundamental problem is that we doubt all claims until they're substantiated. Rowling and China have supported their position - it is incredibly unlike that those claims are false. Possible, but very unlikely. Just because those claims are justified and are no longer disputed, doesn't mean that yours should too. The onus is still on you to justify your claim.

Again, saying something is a "real possibility" does not grant you immunity or "right of way". All you're doing is stating your beliefs then putting, thats a real possibility at the end. There is a man on the roof. Witnesses say he climbed up. Your response is, "He could have been dropped there, (thats a real possibility)." Interpreted as, "the witnesses are unreliable, untrustworthy, liars, frauds, despicable, ignorant goat herders, blind, were in another venue". All these are your beliefs. You thnk attaching, "thats a real possiblity" at the end of that last list, enables you to escape your belief that they are to be disregarded.

I mean what I say. It's you who interprets scepticism as scathing hatred. A court of law does not assume a plaintiff is automatically right, just because they've made a claim - they are 'atheists' in a sense, because they neither believe the plaintiff nor the defendant. Rejecting the veracity of plaintiffs' claims is not tantamount to saying they're "unreliable, untrustworthy, liars, frauds, despicable, ignorant goat herders, blind, were in another venue". It's only you who's inferred this - and I've taken great pains to clarify my position. If you want to nurse your persecution complex, go do it elsewhere. This is a discussion of the evidence, so leave the ad hominems.

And for the record, the "it's a very real possibility" comment was for your sake. You don't seem to realise that this is the case, so I thought I'd point that out to you. It may help the discussion.

Your claims that they should be disregarded are not established. You may claim that they are something else, but the offshoot of that claim being that they are impostors, too low and ignorant to deserve your regard, the conditions present was equal to that of the Harry potter writer (and thus both authors should be equally grouped) or whatever conditions warrant the rejection of the author's competence, are beliefs.
Without verification of JK Rowling's authorship, your claim that she should be disregarded as the author based on latent aforementioned conditions is your belief.

I never said that her authorship is in dispute, I was using it as an example. In any case, there's a very important nuance that you don't seem to be able to grasp: in the utter absence of evidence, the default position is "I don't know". If Rowling claimed to write the books, and I had no evidence either way, I'd be sceptical of her claims. If I then had evidence supporting her claim, I'd believe her. If I had evidence that she didn't write the books (perhaps I myself had written them), then I wouldn't believe her.

Both cases are positive beliefs: "I believe Rowling did write the books" and "I believe Rowling did not write the books" are both beliefs, and the onus falls on me to justify myself.
BUT these are very different to "I don't know whether Rowling wrote the books" - this position is based on the absence of evidence or rationale either way, and thus is not a positive belief. "I don't know if it's true" is different to "I believe it's true" and "I believe it's not true".

And again, what evidence do you have to group someone who writes there is a unicorn in my garden to the bible writers. Unsubstantiation follows. You're merely attempting to sneak this comparison in. If there were to be a cataclysm and the entire populace and resources are wiped out. A few things survive including a "Nature"(or relevant journal) article on the moons of Jupiter. The article is rejected because if "a man claims that unicorns". What evidence do you have to compare a nature scientist to a man claiming that there is a unicorn in his garden. Until the are substantiated, the man and the nature scientist had the same conditions present. I.e, the man never saw a unicorn and therefore Jupiter's moons were not seen either. This is a belief. Merely saying that something is "unsubstantiated" is not grounds to group the conditions of the man saying there is a unicorn and a man saying that there are moons orbiting Jupiter. Of course it gets more complex than that with secret schools, the employment of allegories, dilution etc, but substantiation does not rule out the competence.

*sigh*
I was attempting to explain to you why rejection of a claim does not constitute a belief unto itself. I used the 'unicorns in my garden' idea as an example of a claim that you obviously wouldn't believe. The point is that, just as you can reject the unicorn claim without necessarily having to supply any positive evidence, I can reject the "God wrote the Bible" claim without any positive evidence. I can do this because there is (as far as I can tell) no evidence supporting the claim. The onus is on the claimant - be it the man claiming he has unicorns in his garden, the woman claiming the defendant pushed her down the stairs, or you claiming the Bible was written by God.

To add evidence is not the exclusive factor at play. If you were to board an aircraft, the fact that the pilot is competent to fly is a belief. In fact it is a belief held by every single passenger on the aircraft (unless they are suicidal) This belief is not based on evidence but on the reputation of the pilot. He is in fact in the cockpit,he has his wings, he has a pilot outfit and a pilot hat. But the fact that he is able to fly the aircraft can only be confirmed when you see him fly. What made you believe that he could fly is based on reputation. This CAT III landing of the aircraft here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXJCHUmuUyw&feature=related
is not based on evidence that the runway is in fact right there. It could be anywhere. He could be anywhere. What determines whther he believes it or dismisses its presence at this point in time is not the evidence, but the belief in the reputation of the air traffic controller, and the competence of his instrumentation. That it is reliable, that it is working today. He never sees the runway till he is at about 50ft. When you claim that the pilot cannot fly, or dismisses the factors labeling him as a pilot, you at the same time asserting that he is a fraud, an impostor.

Indeed. However, the reason I believe a pilot is capable of flying very much is to do with the evidence: he is, by all appearances, a qualified pilot. There are countless checks to prevent imposters getting in the cockpit, so it is very likely indeed that the pilot is qualified and capable at his job. In other words, there is sufficient evidence for me to conclude that the man is a qualified pilot.

Now, say I started talking to some guy in a bar, and he says he's a pilot. He's not wearing a uniform, he has no badge, and I don't know enough about piloting planes to test his knowledge. While I have no evidence that he's lying, neither do I have any evidence that he's telling the truth. Thus, by rejecting his claim, I am not calling him a liar. This is something you don't seem to be able to grasp. Rejecting someone's claim is not the same as calling them a liar.
Social mores may compel us to treat it the same, but we're not using colloquialisms, we're using precise terminology to discuss a complex topic. When I say I reject the claim X, I mean something very specific. Do not confuse this with what you might hear at a pub. I do not mean "You're lying", I mean "Your claim is unsubstantiated. It could be true, it could be false. Your word is insufficient".

It is the reputation of the writers, their competence, you are attacking.

Their personality is irrelevant. The only thing I care about is the veracity of their authorship.

The parading of goat herder this and bronze age that, is for this very reason. Ad homs on creationists with the exaltation of atheists is for reputation. This was addressed in the first post but you brushed it off as off topic. Later rather than sooner then.

It's off topic because I never once called them ignorant beasts, goat herders, etc. I have no idea why you keep referring to the authors of the Bible as ignorant beasts, but it seems mighty disrespectful, in my opinion.

But until you see that particular pilot fly, you don't get on the aircraft. You hardly ever see them. To say that atheism is without beliefs or without faith is hardly correct. It is not my purpose for you to accept the bible. You didnt even get through Genesis 1. The point here is the atheist is claiming that his position, his claims about the bible writer, is not a belief. You are making a case against the reputation of the writers, not evidence.

I am rejecting your claim. The authors are long dead. Again, atheism is the absence of belief in deities. That most atheists also reject the claims of divine authorship in the Bible is utterly irrelevant. Atheism doesn't mean you have no beliefs, just that you have no beliefs about one very specific topic: the existence of deities.

Apply the same to your claims. I have my reasons to believe in the competence of the bible writers including the fact that they did not begin as sordid ignoble beastmen.

Then give them! That's what this entire thread is about! Good Lord, it's taken you this long just to say "I have my reasons...". The next step is to give those reasons. That's what the OP asked for. Stop calling the authors of the Bible ignorant beasts, and stick to the topic.

 

[Greg1234]

As do you. We both apply evidence and reason to our understanding of the Bible. Agreed.

This was not as a condition of agreement. But this stands as an admittance of belief.

I don't follow this - could you explain? Whose status? What is that status? How do you know what that status is?

The divine inspiration of the biblical authors as given.

Not necessarily. If they tell me things about the world that are false, am I entitled to conclude that they are not divinely inspired?

Divine inspiration is already disregarded. That it should be is a belief. How it is done, is irrelevant to this topic.

Why? Again - if someone claims to be divinely inspired (and by the way - you don't know that the authors were divinely inspired. In many cases, they didn't even claim to be inspired.)

Though I am not here to consult you on that.

and makes false claims, aren't we entitled to judge how accurate they are?

Whether the claims are "true" or "false" is not the topic of debate.

Or are you claiming they can be divinely inspired and still wrong?

That they can be divinely inspired or not. That the dismissal of who they were (divinely inspired) is warranted is a belief.

Nope. Can't get that. Please try again.

This is not about the application of your evidence to what they wrote. Only that the disregarding of the conditions as given within said authors based on what you regard as contrary evidence, is a belief.

I've said nothing at all about whether they were divinely inspired. All I can say is that they're wrong.

You have dismissed it. That it is to be dismissed is a belief.

What conditions? And my evidence is held by all scientists. Some people simply refuse to accept it.

Again, irrelevant.

 

[Greg1234]

Again, you said man is evidence of God in the same way working radios are evidence of radio waves - i.e., the only explanation for a working radio is the existence of radio waves. The problem with this analogy is that God is not the only explanation for man; there are others. So you have yet to substantiate your claim that man is evidence of God. That's my point.

The other explanations are a non factor. Your request for evidence should then entail the terms and conditions (the belief in Darwinism.) hence filtering out claims to man as evidence. Not waiting then saying we already adhere to Darwinism.

No. My request stands, and you've yet to demonstrate that man is evidence of God.

No it doesnt. As said above, your belief in Darwinism is not held as universally valid. You ask for evidence for God, you were given evidence for God. You ask why this is the evidence for God, and you were told, though you are free to keep asking.

The reason we believe the "Made in China" claim is because that claim is very much substantiated:

No you go back to the beach and say we don't know thus dismissing the claim "Made in China". These are the conditions. That the claim is to be dismissed is a belief. I don't have to dismiss it because you did. Neither are your actions some universal standard for man. All you done attempted to do is reword and apply.

we know that many things are indeed made in China, and there's a very strong chance that this item was also made there. The existence of trading standards and advertisement laws also bolsters the case that the item's claim is, in fact, true.

You have not matched conditions. "You're on a beach" is not a placeholder and is meant to match conditions. You are more concerned with the fact that "Made is China", though there is no direct evidence, is true. You would rather it be compared with something false.

You're conflating your claim ("God exists") with other claims ("Made in China"), and saying that because we don't doubt the latter, we shouldn't doubt yours either.

Actually, all you've done is project. No, I didn't say that both claims are to be grouped, though it becomes apparent why you chose book (and author) Harry Potter.

The fundamental problem is that we doubt all claims until they're substantiated. Rowling and China have supported their position - it is incredibly unlike that those claims are false. Possible, but very unlikely. Just because those claims are justified and are no longer disputed, doesn't mean that yours should too. The onus is still on you to justify your claim.

What you count as evidence is again, not universal. It said the man and there is the man. You wanted evidence for the claim, the evidence through the claim was given. You claim Darwinism, it is not acknowledged. Outline then your terms and print them.

I mean what I say. It's you who interprets scepticism as scathing hatred. A court of law does not assume a plaintiff is automatically right, just because they've made a claim - they are 'atheists' in a sense, because they neither believe the plaintiff nor the defendant. Rejecting the veracity of plaintiffs' claims is not tantamount to saying they're "unreliable, untrustworthy, liars, frauds, despicable, ignorant goat herders, blind, were in another venue".

In that ballpark. The mere reason there is a court of law and a neutral party to hear and assess both cases is because it is deemed that one word is no better than the other. It is not reliable. The acceptance of a police statement has a greater degree of reliability, for example, and does not need the reproduction of events, hair sample to confirm that he was the officer on scene or even the officer to be present, to be accepted. This is a sign of trustworthiness, reliability, no matter in what way this was expressed.

It's only you who's inferred this

You really need to get in better touch with your compadres. Hang out with them. Listen to what they spew. Maybe they behave themselves around you, who knows, but I don't need you to tell me what materialists say.

I never said that her authorship is in dispute, I was using it as an example. In any case, there's a very important nuance that you don't seem to be able to grasp: in the utter absence of evidence, the default position is "I don't know". If Rowling claimed to write the books, and I had no evidence either way, I'd be sceptical of her claims. If I then had evidence supporting her claim, I'd believe her. If I had evidence that she didn't write the books (perhaps I myself had written them), then I wouldn't believe her.

The evidence issue was addressed. A lack of evidence does not affirm the objective nature of dismissal. It is still a belief. "I don't know" is the belief that the authorship as given (JK Rowling) is to be dismissed. It is not universally held or to be regarded as the universal standard for all man. Another is free to reject it.

Both cases are positive beliefs: "I believe Rowling did write the books" and "I believe Rowling did not write the books" are both beliefs, and the onus falls on me to justify myself.
BUT these are very different to "I don't know whether Rowling wrote the books" - this position is based on the absence of evidence or rationale either way, and thus is not a positive belief. "I don't know if it's true" is different to "I believe it's true" and "I believe it's not true".

You have rejected authorship. Rather, it is "I believe Rowling as the author is to be rejected". This is not based on evidence given the conditions. I do not have to look upon you rejection as the objective and I can believe that Rowling wrote the books.

*sigh*
I was attempting to explain to you why rejection of a claim does not constitute a belief unto itself. I used the 'unicorns in my garden' idea as an example of a claim that you obviously wouldn't believe. The point is that, just as you can reject the unicorn claim without necessarily having to supply any positive evidence, I can reject the "God wrote the Bible" claim without any positive evidence. I can do this because there is (as far as I can tell) no evidence supporting the claim. The onus is on the claimant - be it the man claiming he has unicorns in his garden, the woman claiming the defendant pushed her down the stairs, or you claiming the Bible was written by God.

I have acknowledged that you have rejected it. That it should be rejected is a belief. It doesnt matter how much evidence is provided. The belief that it should be rejected is a reflection of unreliability. Examples where the air traffic controllers' claims and instrumentation are relied upon without any evidence that they are correct at this particular time, were given.

You walking into a cockpit and saying that they are to be rejected is a belief. You have evidence of a terrorist takeover in the tower? Icing on the pitot tubing? Electromagnetic disturbances affecting its output? What evidence do you have that they should be rejected? The pilot does not have to comply because the claim that they should be rejected is not an objective. It is a belief. A pilot saying "I don't know where we are" is an automatic rejection of the tower, instrumentation, or both.

Indeed. However, the reason I believe a pilot is capable of flying very much is to do with the evidence: he is, by all appearances, a qualified pilot. There are countless checks to prevent imposters getting in the cockpit, so it is very likely indeed that the pilot is qualified and capable at his job. In other words, there is sufficient evidence for me to conclude that the man is a qualified pilot.

But it is a belief. How hard is this to understand? You atheists have gotten way too proud.

Now, say I started talking to some guy in a bar, and he says he's a pilot. He's not wearing a uniform, he has no badge, and I don't know enough about piloting planes to test his knowledge. While I have no evidence that he's lying, neither do I have any evidence that he's telling the truth. Thus, by rejecting his claim, I am not calling him a liar. This is something you don't seem to be able to grasp. Rejecting someone's claim is not the same as calling them a liar.

He is unreliable, or his word is not to be trusted, seeing that you have rejected it. These are the beliefs. You may reject it, but another is fully justified in, and capable of, accepting his word. You cannot walk up to the man and say that he has no choice but to reject his word because you did. Who are you? You're most likely just woken up and just as unreliable as he is. You are free to believe that it is to be rejected though.

Social mores may compel us to treat it the same, but we're not using colloquialisms, we're using precise terminology to discuss a complex topic. When I say I reject the claim X, I mean something very specific. Do not confuse this with what you might hear at a pub. I do not mean "You're lying", I mean "Your claim is unsubstantiated. It could be true, it could be false. Your word is insufficient".

The unsubstantiated, though addressed at length with regards to the nature article, and the pilots, is not a means to determine objectively, that the rejection is warranted. And you may not call him a liar, but if he claims that he is a pilot and you reject it, then the range or set of possibilities committed to, contains "liar". Dependability, truthfulness, reliability, are not grounds for rejection and make up your counter set through which belief is constituted.

Their personality is irrelevant. The only thing I care about is the veracity of their authorship.

Reputation was given

It's off topic because I never once called them ignorant beasts, goat herders, etc. I have no idea why you keep referring to the authors of the Bible as ignorant beasts, but it seems mighty disrespectful, in my opinion.

You've probably never tuned into Atheism FM. These are a few of the assertions. More will be presented as they come. They make up the "set" for rejection.

I am rejecting your claim.

As I am doing yours.

Then give them! That's what this entire thread is about! Good Lord, it's taken you this long just to say "I have my reasons...". The next step is to give those reasons. That's what the OP asked for. Stop calling the authors of the Bible ignorant beasts, and stick to the topic.

One was given. You really think that because you don't accept creation it will not be applied. Set up the terms and conditions for your requests to avoid these things. No print is worse than fine print.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Wiccan, do you understand what he's claiming? 'cause I'm still baffled.

 

[JonF]

It's still a claim though. Non-committal is the default stance for any claim, no? That the claim is (or, at least, might be) fundamentally untestable doesn't change that.

Absolutely not! Here is a claim that you commit to by default, “I am sane” where I is spoken from your point of view. You can’t ever justify this claim, since in order to evaluate evidence you must presuppose sanity (or at least rationality). But certainly you can be given evidence that suggest you are not sane. For example, if reality suddenly seemed to lack consistency. Or, if friends and family came to you and told you that you seem to be losing your mind. This claim is affirmed by default because it cannot be proven, but it can be falsified. Claims of God are much trickier, since they can’t be verified or falsified.
There are many others also (but not relevant to this thread) such as denial ontological claims (e.x. it is not the case big foot exist)

But if he wants this, he is falsifiable. It may not be practical to falsify a claim, especially if God himself is actively preventing it, but it's still falsifiable in principle.

No, not really. Suppose body of evidence X sufficiently shows God doesn’t exist. It’s possible that God “planted” this evidence to preserve faith (note I don’t believe this line is actual but possible is enough for this argument). Thus God both exist and evidence X sufficiently shows God doesn’t exist. This is a contradiction so the unsupported premise must be false. Which means you can’t sufficiently show God doesn’t exist with evidence. Also, this isn't the claim you want disproved as an atheist, if you deny verifiability, but maintain falsifiability it's standard to accept the claim until it's disproven.

Well, I suppose that depends on how you define 'omnipotence'. I made a thread in EC about that; I got an interesting spectrum of opinions.

I believe that logical consistency is predicate of God, not the other way around.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Absolutely not! Here is a claim that you commit to by default, “I am sane” where I is spoken from your point of view. You can’t ever justify this claim, since in order to evaluate evidence you must presuppose sanity (or at least rationality). But certainly you can be given evidence that suggest you are not sane. For example, if reality suddenly seemed to lack consistency. Or, if friends and family came to you and told you that you seem to be losing your mind. This claim is affirmed by default because it cannot be proven, but it can be falsified. Claims of God are much trickier, since they can’t be verified or falsified.

That depends entirely on the claim, doesn't it? F'r example: the Bible claims that God caused a global flood about four thousand years back. It never happened. That's a "God claim" that has been falsified. Given the definition of God it may be that God cannot be falsified - but particular definitions of God can be.

I believe that logical consistency is predicate of God, not the other way around.

Why? Why should God be logically consistent?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The other explanations are a non factor. Your request for evidence should then entail the terms and conditions (the belief in Darwinism.) hence filtering out claims to man as evidence. Not waiting then saying we already adhere to Darwinism.
...
No it doesnt. As said above, your belief in Darwinism is not held as universally valid. You ask for evidence for God, you were given evidence for God. You ask why this is the evidence for God, and you were told, though you are free to keep asking.
...
Actually, all you've done is project. No, I didn't say that both claims are to be grouped, though it becomes apparent why you chose book (and author) Harry Potter.
...
What you count as evidence is again, not universal. It said the man and there is the man. You wanted evidence for the claim, the evidence through the claim was given. You claim Darwinism, it is not acknowledged. Outline then your terms and print them.

The terms are clear. Present evidence for God. You attempted to present man as evidence of God, but your argument for why man is evidence for God is fallacious: your entire argument rested upon the assumption that God is the only explanation for man. Since this isn't the case, your argument is flawed.

The point is that your 'evidence' is only evidence if there are no other explanations for it. That isn't the case. Whether you believe in the other explanations is irrelevant, all that matters is the fact that they're their. You're saying man is evidence of God because God is the only explanation for man - but this is simply not true. Whether you believe in it or not, evolution is a valid alternative to 'God did it'. Thus, it is not true that "man exists, therefore God exists", because it is entirely possible that man can exist without God.

What you have to do is demonstrate that man can only exist if God exists. You haven't done that.

No you go back to the beach and say we don't know thus dismissing the claim "Made in China". These are the conditions. That the claim is to be dismissed is a belief. I don't have to dismiss it because you did. Neither are your actions some universal standard for man. All you done attempted to do is reword and apply.
You have not matched conditions. "You're on a beach" is not a placeholder and is meant to match conditions. You are more concerned with the fact that "Made is China", though there is no direct evidence, is true. You would rather it be compared with something false.

With all due respect, your grammar is abysmal, so it's very hard to understand just what it is you're trying to say. If I misunderstand you, I apologise, but understand that it stems from your poor communication skills. This isn't a cheap jab, this is something you've been told before by other posters...

In that ballpark. The mere reason there is a court of law and a neutral party to hear and assess both cases is because it is deemed that one word is no better than the other. It is not reliable. The acceptance of a police statement has a greater degree of reliability, for example, and does not need the reproduction of events, hair sample to confirm that he was the officer on scene or even the officer to be present, to be accepted. This is a sign of trustworthiness, reliability, no matter in what way this was expressed.

Exactly! Congratulations, now we're getting somewhere

You really need to get in better touch with your compadres. Hang out with them. Listen to what they spew. Maybe they behave themselves around you, who knows, but I don't need you to tell me what materialists say.

So? If other atheists have been mean to you, dry your eyes and man up. We're discussing the evidence for God, not your personal issues with a couple of mean-spirited people. I couldn't care less what my 'compadres' 'spew'.

The evidence issue was addressed. A lack of evidence does not affirm the objective nature of dismissal. It is still a belief. "I don't know" is the belief that the authorship as given (JK Rowling) is to be dismissed. It is not universally held or to be regarded as the universal standard for all man. Another is free to reject it.
You have rejected authorship. Rather, it is "I believe Rowling as the author is to be rejected". This is not based on evidence given the conditions. I do not have to look upon you rejection as the objective and I can believe that Rowling wrote the books.

No, it most certainly is not. "I don't know" is not "Rowling's authorship should be dismissed". The former is a 'no comment', the latter is an active affirmation of belief. "I believe Rowling's claim should be dismissed" is a belief, and is not the same as "I don't know if Rowling's claim should be dismissed". I have rejected the authorship, but that is not the same as "I believe Rowling's claim should be dismissed". That is not what rejection means.

But it is a belief. How hard is this to understand? You atheists have gotten way too proud.

... are you serious?
I know it's a belief!
I explicitly stated this!
"However, the reason I believe...", "...there is sufficient evidence for me to conclude...".
I never once denied that it was a belief. Rejection of the claim is not a belief, but I explicitly stated that I wasn't rejecting the pilot's claim. That's the entire point!

He is unreliable, or his word is not to be trusted, seeing that you have rejected it. These are the beliefs. You may reject it, but another is fully justified in, and capable of, accepting his word. You cannot walk up to the man and say that he has no choice but to reject his word because you did. Who are you? You're most likely just woken up and just as unreliable as he is. You are free to believe that it is to be rejected though.

The unsubstantiated, though addressed at length with regards to the nature article, and the pilots, is not a means to determine objectively, that the rejection is warranted. And you may not call him a liar, but if he claims that he is a pilot and you reject it, then the range or set of possibilities committed to, contains "liar". Dependability, truthfulness, reliability, are not grounds for rejection and make up your counter set through which belief is constituted.

Of course it contains 'liar', that's not in dispute. The point is that you can't seem to see that there are other possibilities that aren't 'liar'. Again, I explicitly stated this fact: "Thus, by rejecting his claim, I am not calling him a liar. This is something you don't seem to be able to grasp. Rejecting someone's claim is not the same as calling them a liar."
Please, please, please, read my posts before you make your replies, you're just embarrassing yourself.

You've probably never tuned into Atheism FM. These are a few of the assertions. More will be presented as they come. They make up the "set" for rejection.

I literally couldn't care less what "Atheism FM" says. You realise atheists are unaffiliated with each other, right? The what one atheist says isn't necessarily the same for all atheists, right?

As I am doing yours.

One was given. You really think that because you don't accept creation it will not be applied. Set up the terms and conditions for your requests to avoid these things. No print is worse than fine print.

You haven't in the slightest. You said man is evidence of God because God is the only explanation for man. Since God isn't the only explanation for man, your claim is wrong. Whether you believe it or not, both God and evolution can explain the existence of man. Thus, man is not evidence of God. This isn't fine-print, Greg, this is just a statement of fact. You may as well say that "1+1=5 is evidence of God", completely missing the fact that your claim is false.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Absolutely not! Here is a claim that you commit to by default, “I am sane” where I is spoken from your point of view. You can’t ever justify this claim, since in order to evaluate evidence you must presuppose sanity (or at least rationality). But certainly you can be given evidence that suggest you are not sane. For example, if reality suddenly seemed to lack consistency. Or, if friends and family came to you and told you that you seem to be losing your mind. This claim is affirmed by default because it cannot be proven, but it can be falsified.

I disagree. Question one's own sanity is disturbingly common among humans, myself included. It's not one we affirm by default, but rather one we affirm based on the evidence to hand - as you say, one's insanity can be shown by a sudden inconsistency with reality. Likewise, the fact that reality isn't inconsistent, can be seen as evidence for one's sanity.

No, not really. Suppose body of evidence X sufficiently shows God doesn’t exist. It’s possible that God “planted” this evidence to preserve faith (note I don’t believe this line is actual but possible is enough for this argument). Thus God both exist and evidence X sufficiently shows God doesn’t exist.

Agreed.

This is a contradiction so the unsupported premise must be false.

I disagree. Where's the contradiction?

Which means you can’t sufficiently show God doesn’t exist with evidence.

Sure you can. We can sufficiently show that Classical Mechanics is true if we choose our evidence selectively (i.e., ignore all post-1900 data), but that doesn't mean it is true.

Also, this isn't the claim you want disproved as an atheist, if you deny verifiability, but maintain falsifiability it's standard to accept the claim until it's disproven.

I don't understand.

I believe that logical consistency is predicate of God, not the other way around.

 

[Greg1234]

Whether you believe in it or not, evolution is a valid alternative to 'God did it'.

Then this argument is done. Next time, please state that Darwinism is to be accepeted upon entry. That would filter me out, rather than enter an arena where Darwinism is "off topic" because it is already accepted.

What you have to do is demonstrate that man can only exist if God exists. You haven't done that.

This is a theology I have no intent of getting into. This has to do wit the detection of radio waves, how the radio works, application, etc.

With all due respect, your grammar is abysmal, so it's very hard to understand just what it is you're trying to say. If I misunderstand you, I apologise, but understand that it stems from your poor communication skills. This isn't a cheap jab, this is something you've been told before by other posters...

No you go back to the beach[camp as stated] and say we don't know thus dismissing the claim "Made in China". These are the conditions.
​

The conditions present are as given. Saying we don't know, is automatically a dismissal of the stamp "made in China". Since "Made in China" is information regarding its origins. Information regarding its origins is made in china. Therefore the stamp made in china is information on the origins of the appliance. If you claim to not know the origins of the appliance, after seeing "Made in China", then it is dismissed.
Relevant word(s):
Dismissed- "4.to discard or reject".Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com. Conditions -"1.a particular mode of being of a person or thing; existing"
Stamp- "17.an official mark indicating genuineness, validity, etc., or payment of a duty or charge.

That the claim is to be dismissed is a belief.
​

That the stamp (made in china is to be dismissed is not a universal bind. You are free to dismiss it, but its unreliability is not held universally. Another is free to believe that it should not be rejected. That the package was indeed infact made in China. Thus we are aware of where the appliance came from. Because it was not rejected. Its rejection not being enabled depicts acceptance. Acceptance is indicative of reliability. Thus your postion is not universally held. Because your position, that it should be rejected is a belief.

I don't have to dismiss it because you did.
​

I dont have to dismiss it (you might have gotten lost on "it". It is referring to the appliance, with the stamp Made in China) because you did. This sentence means that I am not obligated to hold your belief that the stamp is to be rejected.
Relevant word(s):
Obligated- 2 to pledge commit or bind
Consult if even further explanation is needed.

Neither are your actions some universal standard for man
​

You actions -going back to the camp ("No you go back to the beach and say we don't know thus dismissing the claim "Made in China"' [first sentence]), is not the standard, or the norm or what is to be adhered to or the natural course of action and reaction. Those other people, in possession of will, are not subjected to yours. The world is not your vacuum cleaner. Therefore it is not universal that adherence is the course. It is your course.

Relevant word(s):
Possession: the act or fact of possessing.
Possess: to have as belonging to one
vacuum cleaner: an electrical appliance for cleaning carpets.
Norm: a standard or model or pattern

All you done attempted to do is reword and apply.
​

What you have done means what has been done by you in your post.
Relevant word(s)
reword: to put into other words
apply: to make use of as relevant suitable or pertinent.

You have not matched conditions.
​

This means that you have created a discrepancy in the analogy.
Relevant word(s):
Discrepancy: Inconsistency
analogy: Logic . a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

"You're on a beach" is not a placeholder and is meant to match conditions.
​

"Youre on a beach" is a means of matching conditions across the analogy (for conditions and meaning see above). Matching conditions across the analogy is accomplished through "You're on a beach". "You're on a beach" enables conditions to be matched

Relevant word(s):
Means-an agency instrument or method used to attain an end.

You are more concerned with the fact that "Made is China", though there is no direct evidence, is true
​

You are nervous about the fact "Made in China" will be mapped or can be mapped across the relevant principle in the analogy. That it may be mapped spawns anxiety. Mapping = no no
Relevant word(s)
Anxiety- distress or uneasiness of mind caused by fear

You would rather it be compared with something false.
​

You (as in yourself Mr "Wiccan_Child") would rather it be put up with something known to be made up (like you have done with the pink unicorn, Harry Potter etc). Something known to be false being compared with the bible as discussed, would make you more comfortable. Comfort is attained when something known to be made up is compared. Comparisons with something made up will make you feel more at rest. The importance of this causes you to rile.

If even more clarification is needed repeat quote and it will be broken down further (provided that it[ a further explanation] is deemed warranted and/or necessary).
Relevant word(s)
deemed-judged
warranted- justified

So? If other atheists have been mean to you, dry your eyes and man up.

Even though not being a man enough, not having mental strength, not being capable of matching the atheist, has nothing to do with the fact your statement "It is only you who has inferred this" is false since other atheists have in fact "inferred this".

No, it most certainly is not. "I don't know" is not "Rowling's authorship should be dismissed". The former is a 'no comment', the latter is an active affirmation of belief. "I believe Rowling's claim should be dismissed" is a belief, and is not the same as "I don't know if Rowling's claim should be dismissed". I have rejected the authorship, but that is not the same as "I believe Rowling's claim should be dismissed". That is not what rejection means.

We are dealing with Rowling as the author. I don't know who wrote the book automatically means that Rowling as the author is to be rejected. You rejecting Rowling is not universal nor are your actions deemed as such. That it should be rejected (as you actions are a rejection of Rowling as the author) is a belief. Jack believes that Rowling as the author is to be accepted (not rejected) thus Jack sees that he knows who wrote the book (JK Rowling) and rejects your belief.

... are you serious?
I know it's a belief!
I explicitly stated this!
"However, the reason I believe...", "...there is sufficient evidence for me to conclude...".
I never once denied that it was a belief. Rejection of the claim is not a belief, but I explicitly stated that I wasn't rejecting the pilot's claim. That's the entire point!

Big font. But the point of the matter is we are addressing flight. Though you see him in his pilot clothing, it is not evidence that he is able to fly at this time. He takes off, he does a roll, engages auto pilot, lands; evidence that he is able to fly. You sitting on the aircraft precedes the flying, hence it is a belief without evidence that he is able to fly at this time. He takes off, and plunges into the water. Why? Because his pilot clothes did not mean that taking 8 sleeping pills prior means that he was able to fly at this time.

If the analogy was about belief with evidence, then the pilot's clothing, restrictions etc, would be used (which is evidence that he is a pilot) In fact, I even gave the pilot clothing, including the hat. But the use of this was to show show belief without direct evidence. You rejecting htat he can fly because there is no evidence is not the "default". Every passenger on that plane deems the idea that it should be rejected, as a belief, with the acceptance that he is able to fly at this time before he flies. Hence the belief in ability can be accepted without evidence.

Of course it contains 'liar', that's not in dispute. The point is that you can't seem to see that there are other possibilities that aren't 'liar'. Again, I explicitly stated this fact: "Thus, by rejecting his claim, I am not calling him a liar. This is something you don't seem to be able to grasp. Rejecting someone's claim is not the same as calling them a liar."

In that ballpark. You could call him anything but trustworthy or reliable, as these hinge on acceptance. Dismissal envelops the commitment to that which warrants dismissal. Like liar, unreliable, not competent, "word" not up to par, or good enough to be accepted.

Please, please, please, read my posts before you make your replies, you're just embarrassing yourself.

Will do.

I literally couldn't care less what "Atheism FM" says. You realize atheists are unaffiliated with each other, right? The what one atheist says isn't necessarily the same for all atheists, right?

Hence your quote which implies that I was referring to you is irrelevant.

Yep.

You haven't in the slightest. You said man is evidence of God because God is the only explanation for man. Since God isn't the only explanation for man, your claim is wrong. Whether you believe it or not, both God and evolution can explain the existence of man.

As I said, set up your terms.

 

[JonF]

I disagree. Question one's own sanity is disturbingly common among humans, myself included. It's not one we affirm by default, but rather one we affirm based on the evidence to hand - as you say, one's insanity can be shown by a sudden inconsistency with reality. Likewise, the fact that reality isn't inconsistent, can be seen as evidence for one's sanity.

No it isn’t. It’s one of the problems of evidence. Let’s say I’m examining the claim “This object in my hand is a blue shirt”. Examining broad negative traits about it doesn’t actually help me prove my claim without some positive piece of evidence to do refinement on. For example if I prove it’s not a, green pen, purple cup, blue cell phone, or red ball. That isn’t evidence it’s a blue shirt.
But that’s a moot point for my argument as is your objection. How do you know applied the negation rationally? Any evidence you affirm in support of being rational, rationality needs to be presupposed for a rational affirmation.

I disagree. Where's the contradiction?

This line is a contradiction: “Thus God both exist and evidence X sufficiently shows God doesn’t exist.”
If the evidence was truly sufficient then God would necessarily not exist.

Sure you can. We can sufficiently show that Classical Mechanics is true if we choose our evidence selectively (i.e., ignore all post-1900 data), but that doesn't mean it is true.

Which by definition wouldn’t be sufficient evidence. If there isn’t criteria that would sufficiently show a claim is true, by definition it isn’t verifiable.

I don't understand.

If there is some possible way to prove a claim false, but no possible way to prove it true. You assume it’s true because there exist criteria to prove it false. It’s the same reason we use to deny verifiable claims that can’t be falsified. There is a possible way to prove them true, but no way to prove them false.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then this argument is done. Next time, please state that Darwinism is to be accepeted upon entry. That would filter me out, rather than enter an arena where Darwinism is "off topic" because it is already accepted.

So you disagree that the theory of common descent is theoretically valid? Because, you'll notice, even though I don't believe in Creationism, I've done you the courtesy of acknowledging it as a possibility. If you can't do the same for the theory of common descent, then our disagreement goes waaaay beyond your little semantic game. So first, answer that question, and we'll go from there.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No it isn’t. It’s one of the problems of evidence. Let’s say I’m examining the claim “This object in my hand is a blue shirt”. Examining broad negative traits about it doesn’t actually help me prove my claim without some positive piece of evidence to do refinement on. For example if I prove it’s not a, green pen, purple cup, blue cell phone, or red ball. That isn’t evidence it’s a blue shirt.

Technically it is, but it's also evidence that it's a red shirt, a pink elephant, and the Queen, so it's pretty useless. Nonetheless, in certain circumstances, the list of alternative possibilities is sufficiently small that a systematic series of disproofs is practical - proof by contradiction, reduction to the absurd, etc - and this could well be the case here.

But that’s a moot point for my argument as is your objection. How do you know applied the negation rationally? Any evidence you affirm in support of being rational, rationality needs to be presupposed for a rational affirmation.

Then rationality is an exceptional case. 'No comment' is the default stance for any claim for which you can say 'No comment'. Exceptions, then, are those for which you can't say 'No comment' (e.g., 'You exist'), and those which must be presupposed in order to say 'No comment'.
To put it another way, we may as well affirm our rationality/

This line is a contradiction: “Thus God both exist and evidence X sufficiently shows God doesn’t exist.”

I don't see why that's a contradiction. We're not saying "God exists and God does not exist", we're saying "The evidence thus far points to God's existence, yet God does not actually exist", or vice versa.

If the evidence was truly sufficient then God would necessarily not exist.

Which by definition wouldn’t be sufficient evidence. If there isn’t criteria that would sufficiently show a claim is true, by definition it isn’t verifiable.

Then, like most arguments, we've boiled down to a simple semantic disagreement: 'sufficient evidence' means 'evidence that proves beyond all reasonable doubt', not 'evidence that proves beyond all doubt'. If I say there is sufficient evidence to conclude CM, then I'm basically saying that there is enough evidence to warrant belief in CM. That doesn't mean it is true, just that it's almost certainly true. And, very occasionally, it turns out that the evidence we have accrued was wrong - as was the case for CM. All it takes is a single piece of evidence to disprove a claim, despite all the evidence supporting it.

So how can sufficient evidence point to something that's false? Well, in the case of CM, we simply didn't have sensitive enough data. CM and QM are different, but predict broadly the same phenomena at large scales; their differences are only apparent at small scales, which we only really started seeing in the past century or so. All the evidence in the world pointed to CM... but it also, technically, pointed to the hitherto unknown QM.

So. There could be sufficient evidence for God, but we could still be wrong. This doesn't invalidate empiricism, of course, it just highlights the fact that evidencing is only ever a probabilistic process. You can never prove something beyond all doubt with evidence alone, because, however unlikely, it could still be false.

Do atoms exist? Almost certainly. How else could we explain the evidence, though? By magic gnomes.

 

[JonF]

Then rationality is an exceptional case. 'No comment' is the default stance for any claim for which you can say 'No comment'. Exceptions, then, are those for which you can't say 'No comment' (e.g., 'You exist'), and those which must be presupposed in order to say 'No comment'.
To put it another way, we may as well affirm our rationality/

What makes rationality so special? If it’s not the lack of verifiability and possibility of falsifiability?

I don't see why that's a contradiction. We're not saying "God exists and God does not exist", we're saying "The evidence thus far points to God's existence, yet God does not actually exist", or vice versa
Then, like most arguments, we've boiled down to a simple semantic disagreement: 'sufficient evidence' means 'evidence that proves beyond all reasonable doubt', not 'evidence that proves beyond all doubt'. If I say there is sufficient evidence to conclude CM, then I'm basically saying that there is enough evidence to warrant belief in CM. That doesn't mean it is true, just that it's almost certainly true. And, very occasionally, it turns out that the evidence we have accrued was wrong - as was the case for CM. All it takes is a single piece of evidence to disprove a claim, despite all the evidence supporting it. .

The definition of the word disagrees with you. What you are describing is cogent/strong. Necessary and sufficient condition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So how can sufficient evidence point to something that's false? Well, in the case of CM, we simply didn't have sensitive enough data. CM and QM are different, but predict broadly the same phenomena at large scales; their differences are only apparent at small scales, which we only really started seeing in the past century or so. All the evidence in the world pointed to CM... but it also, technically, pointed to the hitherto unknown QM.

Sufficient evidence can’t point to something that’s false. That’s what it means to be sufficient. In the case of CM all the evidence in the world at that point wasn’t sufficient.

So. There could be sufficient evidence for God, but we could still be wrong. This doesn't invalidate empiricism, of course, it just highlights the fact that evidencing is only ever a probabilistic process. You can never prove something beyond all doubt with evidence alone, because, however unlikely, it could still be false.

No their couldn’t. If there is sufficient evidence for God, God exist. If there is sufficient evidence God doesn’t exist, God doesn’t exist.

Do atoms exist? Almost certainly. How else could we explain the evidence, though? By magic gnomes.

Magic Gnomes wouldn’t be sufficient evidence, by definition of the word sufficient. Redefine the word if you want. But my claims are using the standard definition.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What makes rationality so special? If it’s not the lack of verifiability and possibility of falsifiability?

It's its required presumption. If we don't presume our own rationality, we can't make arguments.

The definition of the word disagrees with you. What you are describing is cogent/strong. Necessary and sufficient condition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Like I said, our disagreement is a semantic one. The 'sufficient' in 'sufficient evidence' is not the same as the 'sufficient' in 'sufficient condition'. The latter is a implication

Sufficient evidence can’t point to something that’s false. That’s what it means to be sufficient. In the case of CM all the evidence in the world at that point wasn’t sufficient.

And evidence can never be sufficient in that sense, hence why it should be obvious why 'sufficient evidence' means something quite different.

No their couldn’t. If there is sufficient evidence for God, God exist. If there is sufficient evidence God doesn’t exist, God doesn’t exist.

Magic Gnomes wouldn’t be sufficient evidence, by definition of the word sufficient. Redefine the word if you want. But my claims are using the standard definition.

You are using the ontological meaning, not the epistemological meaning. The terms 'necessary and sufficient', as used in strict logic, mean something different to the terms as used in empiricism.

By your definition, A is a 'sufficient' criterion for B if its satisfaction completely proves the truth of B. But the nature of evidence means that there is no such thing as 'sufficient evidence' as you define it. Thus, when I talk about 'sufficient evidence', I'd have thought it was obvious that I wasn't using the definition of 'sufficient' as used in formal logic, but rather the definition as used in both empirical science and common parlance.

In any case, I've already explicitly stated what I meant by 'sufficient evidence', so this semantic quibble is utterly pointless. I know what I mean by the phrase, you know what I mean by the phrase.