Positive proof?

[rainbow]

Fuck off troll.

That's nice!

[Blind groper]

If we want to define "God", my view is that there are two factors we require. By this definition, God is a being that, among other things....

1. Is much more powerful that the human species
2. Interacts with humans so as to make our lives better or worse.

It is quite possible there may be superior beings in other galaxies, or living close to distant star systems, or made out of non interacting dark matter, or even in other universes, that have no interaction with humans, and therefore do not affect us in any way possible. I would exclude such beings from the definition on the simple grounds that they do not matter to us as humans.

Bearing in mind the above two requirements for a deity, my opinion, based on the dearth of credible evidence, is that the probability of a deity existing is very low.

Seth, is that statement acceptable to you?

[Brian Peacock]

Why do 'we' have to define God?


I mean, surely we either except the definition provided, or not?

[Blind groper]

Brian

I am responding to Seth.
From his specific viewpoint, he has a valid point. We can and do rebut the idea of 'God' from the stance of a Christian or Muslim. But that still does not rebut other ideas or models of deity. So Seth claims, and rightly from his idea of deity, that we have not shown that deity is non existent or unlikely.

So I am trying to come up with a definition of deity that would be acceptable to all. A target to demolish.

While there may be superior, powerful; "god-like" beings in some far off situation, if they have no influence on humans, we can disregard them in any discussion of deity.

My view is that any definition of 'God' means a powerful being who has an influence on humans. As such, we can use our logic to determine the probability of such a being existing. The lack of evidence of such a being, IMHO, means its existence is very improbable.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

And you give a rat's ass what they say why, exactly? How is their irrationality and unreason justification for yours? Aren't you better than that?

What an utterly meaningless statement. There are several reasons why it might be useful to care about their position. One is that, in many cases, they make assertions about the nature of the material world that are demonstrably false, and deserve to be countered.

So counter them with factual science not idle and irrational speculation.

Another is that they have the arrogance to assert that their putative deity wants me to worship him.

Why is that arrogant?

I have every right to dispute assertions made that supposedly affect me.

Of course you do. I've never even hinted otherwise. But "dispute assertions" is not the same thing as drawing irrational conclusions about someone's irrational claims.

Other than that, are you claiming that all adherents of religion are irrational? A rather broad generalisation, that even Richard Dawkins may hesitate to make...

No, I merely state that if they make irrational assertions it is pointlessly obtuse to reply with irrational assertions.

Seth wrote:

If what you say were even remotely true I'd agree, but it's not.

I presume you are referring to this:

"atheists do not claim with absolute certainty that a god, whether generalised or specific, does not exist"

The vast majority of atheists on this forum who bother to argue with you say this, or words to that effect, over and over again. Not believing in a god is not logically the same as an assertion that one is certain that no god exists.

They say them to me, when I challenge their routine insults and broad generalizations about people of faith, which they do whenever they think I'm not paying attention. Now, I will admit that the bar has been somewhat raised here and it's been a while (though not long) since I've seen the sort of blatant religion-bashing that was commonplace here, and at RatSkep, and RDF before it. And that's a good thing, for which I claim at least some responsibility because of my staunch defense of common courtesy and reason.

Which is not to say that I still don't see the same old bad behavior from Atheists everywhere else I look. Therefore you here might be taking the brunt of my observations of atheism generally, but that's okay because you all do the same thing to theists generally, so turnabout is fair play.

[Seth]

Made Up Fallacy fallacy.

BG is referring to a supernatural god. Therefore it's perfectly accurate to discuss the logical process involved in proving or disproving supernatural gods. What you are on about, only God (supernatural or not) knows.

Well, first you have to prove that there is anything that is "supernatural" in the first place because you are basing your argument on the premise that the "god" is "supernatural," and second you have to prove that this "god" either exists or does not exist in that "supernatural" realm.

If you claim that the god does not exist because he's supernatural, and by definition there is nothing supernatural, you are forming a tautological fallacy based on ignorance because you do not know that there is nothing supernatural nor do you know that the god is supernatural in character. You are merely assuming so without evidence supporting that assertion.

[Brian Peacock]

Brian

I am responding to Seth.
From his specific viewpoint, he has a valid point. We can and do rebut the idea of 'God' from the stance of a Christian or Muslim. But that still does not rebut other ideas or models of deity. So Seth claims, and rightly from his idea of deity, that we have not shown that deity is non existent or unlikely.

I get that BG. For myself I sometimes think about it this way...

If some tribe or whatever say that the one true god Dhango created the world and lives in that cave over there, then we'd rub our hands together because we'd have something to which we have access. We could go into the cave and explore it for traces and signs of Dhango. But say we did that and didn't find any evidence for Dhango, all we found was evidence for the usual type of cave stuff, and so we say to the chief, "We have searched every crack and crevice and yet we did not find Dhango. Perhaps Dhango doesn't exist or doesn't live there", an the chief replies, "No, you are wrong. You do not know our ways. Dhango is in that cave, even now - his spirit is strong in that place" - then what do we have? We have a definition of a god which is necessarily unfalsifiable because it is, by definition, beyond observation; supernatural. Invoking 'the supernatural' does invoke a profound or non-trivial idea, all it does is create a circular definition (a thing which is, by definition, beyond definition) that obliges us to accept the conclusion that the supernatural thing exist in order to discuss what kind of type or order of thing the the supernatural thing is, or might be. See how knotty that's getting just trying to describe the anatomy of the discourse, before we even get into the discourse itself? Also, see Jim's 'putative supernature beings' thread.

Seth plays a gambit favoured by many apologists, asserting that a certain set of conditions apply in a given realm of enquiry which mean that the very absence of a thing, or traces of or evidence for its existence, is cited as among its marvellous and wonderful atrributes and properties. E.G. God is that which is beyond human understanding, perception or comprehension. And so 'we', the sceptical challengers, often get drawn into an ontological discussion about what type of thing can and/or does exist for which no-evidence and no-trace are, or can be said to be, legitimate components of a defintion of its properties or attributes.

But we're really not obliged to play this game of god-guessing in order to demonstrate we're taking god-claims seriously - all we have to do is say, "If you try and tell me what kind of thing your god is, and why you think that, I'll try and tell you what I think about it."

So I am trying to come up with a definition of deity that would be acceptable to all. A target to demolish.

I suspect that the believer in a deity will be the party to assert the right to settle the definition, of what their deity is or isn't. For example, my formulation for 'deity' is 'an irrationally ascribed agency to natural phenomena'. I doubt that will find favour with any believers, even though it seems to essentially cover all deities. This is because, in my experience, believers tend to define their deities in terms of their powers and job-description: e.g. The Bringer of Light, The Law Giver, The All-seeing All-knowing Creator of All Things, The Guardians of the Forest, The Spirits of the River.... whatever.

While there may be superior, powerful; "god-like" beings in some far off situation, if they have no influence on humans, we can disregard them in any discussion of deity.

Aye, as I've said previously in this thread, Deism of this sort is essentially unfalsifiable and does not seem to oblige us to any particular sort of moral or political outlook, philosophy, or other thought or action.

My view is that any definition of 'God' means a powerful being who has an influence on humans. As such, we can use our logic to determine the probability of such a being existing. The lack of evidence of such a being, IMHO, means its existence is very improbable.

[knitpicking]. 'God' is the national deity of the ancient Israelites, also known as YHWH, Allah, and Jehovah, and subsumed into the character Jesus in the Christian tradition. I think one must guard against confusing one's discourse by premising it on the Abrahamic deity as if this is the only conception of a god-like-thing, or at least the most reasonably presented or coherent description of a god-like-thing. It's neither. If someone wants to run their argument off the back of 'God' then they should be defining what 'God' is and explicating its properties, attributes, remits and responsibilities, as well as outlining any consequences for believers and others. Still, that niggle aside, if it was 'a god' or 'a deity' rather than 'God' I'd happily grant your description as about as good as any.

[Seth]

If 'you' means Jim, then he isn't building an argument on supernaturalism, but characterising the object of certain types of claim made on the behalf of supernatural agents by theist (etc). If 'you' means atheists, then ditto.

Defining a claimed-for thing as 'supernatural', that is; 'beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; beyond comprehension or perception', does not oblige the rational individual to withhold a conclusion about the claim, and if you think otherwise then you've simply failed to demonstrate exactly why unevidenced claims for supernatural agents or entities are essentially different to all other kinds of unevidenced claim, such that they carry the necessary rational burden of an evidenced dismissal.

You're confusing counterclaim with dismissal again...

You are conflating the dismissal of a specific claim with a claim in its own right.

We seem to have a disagreement as to the meaning of "dismissal" and "refutation" or "rebuttal" or "counterclaim."

To me, "dismissal" is quite simply that: "I have heard your claim and refuse to give your argument any further consideration." No explanation is required. This is a rational action to take in the face of an irrational and unsupported claim.

To "refute" or "rebut" or make a "counterclaim" is to analyze the original claim and form a conclusion about the truth value of the claim, which requires a review of the evidence in support of and in refutation of the original claim, weighting of that evidence and the drawing of a rational, logical conclusion, which is stated in the general form, "I have heard your claim and for the following reasons I find it not to be credible."

In the first case, in response to an irrational claim of God's existence unsupported by any evidence, a simple "meh" would suffice, or, if one is being logical, "I don't know about that" is an intellectually strong answer.

In the second case "That's a silly thing to say because there is no evidence that God exists" is an irrational and intellectually bankrupt answer because. obviously, you cannot rationally make the claim that "no evidence" exists because you are not...well...a god who is omniscient.

... If someone says that God is "beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; beyond comprehension or perception" it is perfectly rational to dismiss the claim and move on. What is not rational is to argue (either explicitly or implicitly) that because (according to science) nothing is beyond scientific understanding, outside of the laws of nature or beyond comprehension, therefore a god so described cannot and does not exist. This is a tautological construct and therefore irrational.

The anatomy of this claim runs like this:

1. God exists (as a supernatural entity of some sort or kind) beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; beyond comprehension or perception.

This is your first logical failure. The Atheist's Fallacy states that you are making a logical error by assuming that the claim that God is supernatural defines the question of whether or not God exists. Just because the claimant believes God to have those characteristics does not mean that God does in fact have them. You are limiting the consideration of the root proposition "God exists" to only a god that is supernatural in nature which makes it easy to dismiss based on the unsupported assertion that God is beyond understanding, comprehension or perception, some of all of which may not be true. The qualification in the claim makes it an irrational statement which is best simply dismissed with "you're stating a tautology and I won't give it further consideration" or some such.

[*] if the claim cannot be said to be true then it can be said to be false, under the logical principle that not-true = false.

This is your second logical failure. There is another option which you have missed, and that is that if the claim cannot be said to be true it may still not be false, it may be undetermined.

An example of this is the heliocentric theory of the universe. Pre-Copernican science maintained that the sun and stars revolved around the earth, which was at the center of the universe. This conclusion was based on existing knowledge of physics and observations by scientists of the time. When Copernicus came along and said "No, the earth revolves around the sun" his claim was rather forcefully rejected, and irrationally so, using the exact logic you use, which is that in the eyes of the larger body of scientists Copernicus' claim could not be said to be true given the knowledge and understanding they had, therefore they concluded, incorrectly, as you do, that not-true = false.

The proper rational conclusion was, of course, "we don't know" followed by a review of Copernicus' evidence proving his claim followed by a change in scientific thought. In other words, in the absence of evidence showing that Copernicus was WRONG, the conclusion that his claim was false was an irrational conclusion. But then again, in the absence of evidence as yet unseen supporting Copernicus' claim as RIGHT, it was just as irrational to conclude that his claim was true. Therefore the correct logical statement is not "not-true = false" it's "unevidenced = indeterminate."

[*] it is perfectly rational to dismiss the claim if it relies on a blind assertion (Brian Peacock) and/or relies on a circular definition (Seth).

Dismiss yes, as in "Please go away."

[*] the claim relies on a blind assertion and a circular definition (3).

Yes.

[*] The claim cannot be said to be true (4),

There's the flaw.

therefore;
[*]

• Theist: maintains belief in the claim (by faith, or necessity, or social obligation or tradition, or whatever) negating (2)(3)(4)(5).
  Atheist: disbelieves the claims because:
  1. (5), therefore;
  2. Conclusion: (to all intents and purposes) God does not exist.

[/list]
No counter-claim is needed or has been issued. The atheist's conclusion is 'perfectly' rational an logical within the context of the claim, and only within that context. The conclusion does not touch on the actual-factual existence of God, but dismisses the claim in its own terms, which justifies opposing (dissenting/negating/rejecting) the claim. To divorce the conclusion from that context by declaration (semantic sleight-of-hand; strawmanning) or by simple misapprehension is a failure in reasoning which renders any and all subsequent, dependent arguments invalid.

The Atheist cannot draw a rational conclusion that God does not exist based on the tautological claim of the theist because the claim of the theist neither defines nor constrains the actual existence of God because it may be an erroneous description of God not reflecting the truth. The Atheist might rationally say "Your argument is tautological and an example of the fallacy of begging the question and therefore I dismiss it without further consideration without drawing any conclusions about the existence or non existence of God."

What is not rational is to argue (either explicitly or implicitly) that because (according to science) nothing is beyond scientific understanding, outside of the laws of nature or beyond comprehension, therefore a god so described cannot and does not exist. This is a tautological construct and therefore irrational.

This is not a specifically scientific definition of 'supernatural', just a general one taken from an online dictionary. Science does not generally maintain, as you suggest here, there are no things which are not beyond its understanding. In fact, science admits that there are many things beyond its understanding, either currently or potentially, but that does not render those things, as you again suggest here, necessarily 'supernatural'. What science and reasonable people do not admit is that a blind assertion for the existence of a thing, which is, by definition, "beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; beyond comprehension or perception" is a good reason to proportion assent to a claim for that thing's existence.

There's no general objection by me to this.

Your position is epistemologically challenged. By your lights, we may grant the existence of a thing (provisionally) on the grounds that not being able to demonstrate the thing's existence does not mean the thing itself does not exist - does not touch on the actual-factual extant status of the the thing itself. But your argument goes further to propose a particular epistemic normativity, that is; you go beyond a plain admission that, in a particular realm of enquiry, 'we know what we do not know'. You maintain a global thesis that we cannot foreclose on any unevidenced claim to knowledge as the nature of the claim (unevidneced) says nothing about the extant status (the existence, or not) of the thing claimed-for unless we can demonstrate evidentially that the thing which is claimed-for does not exist. This is called shifting the burden. And it is shifting the burden because it requires a level justification of dissentors which is not required of claimants. In this particular realm it acts an an injunction against atheists coming to a reasonable conclusion about god-claims on the grounds that 'atheists cannot even know what they do not know' in the face of assertions for something which is, by definition, beyond knowing. The upshot of this is that defining something as essentially unknowable is now no bar to knowledge, that is; defining something as essentially and fundamentally unknowable ('supernatural') can now act as a legitimate justification for a claim to knowledge - and the justification for this epistemic practice is the defined unknowable nature of the claimed-for thing. This is called Feathering one's nest. And it is nest feathering because it is a formulation that serves the claimant alone, immunising their justification against, and insulating it from, the reasonable, rational, logical challenges of others while foreclosing on any and all dismissal.

I'm afraid this is quite a distortion of my argument. First, I do not claim that we may grant the existence of a thing, provisionally or otherwise on the otherwise perfectly logical argument that "not being able to demonstrate the thing's existence does not mean the thing itself does not exist" which is in fact the core of my argument.

My argument is not that we may grant the existence of a thing on that basis but rather that we may not claim that the thing does not exist merely because the claim of it's existence is tautological in nature. We need to separate the core question from the unevidenced assertion. The core claim is "God exists." This is qualified by some theists with the companion claim that God is unknowable, which is both unevidenced (and therefore irrational) and tautological, but the core question remains.

Does God exist or does God not exist? Only after determining the answer to this quintessentially scientific question (as Dawkins admits) does the nature and/or character of God come into question. Theists try to claim that God exists while at the same time eternally and forever excusing themselves from providing critically robust evidence of that existence by simultaneously claiming that God is also ineffable. That is obviously irrational and should be dismissed as such without drawing any conclusion as to the truth or falsity of the core question.

Atheists qualify their justification for not proportioning assent to the claims of theists (etc) all the time. What you have slipped into is divorcing what they offer by way of justification from the context of the claim, in an effort to make a conclusion about the claims of others stand as a claims in their own rights. Your 'challenges' regarding the logic and reason of withholding assent to god-claims are therefore invalid, because they address the conclusion as a claim rather than addressing the reasons for arriving at that conclusion - the justification of the claim itself. As I have already said...

First comes the claim; then the deliberation thereof; then the conclusion thereon. If the claim cannot be said to be true it can be said to be false, under the logical principle that not-true = false, until or unless something else is brought to the claim's justification.

The context of the conclusion is the claim itself. By all means challenge the reasons for atheist arriving at that conclusion, as that will invariably focus on the robustness of the justification for the claim itself, but to declare the atheists conclusion errant ('illogical and irrational) simply because it does not proportion assent to the claim, or to declare that conclusion an unjustified claim itself, or to assert that such a conclusion is not and cannot be rationally justified, is a failure in reasoning which renders any subsequent, dependent arguments invalid

Again, the failure of your argument is the presumption that "cannot be said to be true = false." In this case, "cannot be said to be true = indeterminate."

Again, you are divorcing a conclusion about a claim from the context of the claim itself (as well as divorcing the sentence above from the general point!). After all, it is not a conclusion plucked from thin air is it(?). It is a "position" (as you put) with reference to a particular claim made within a particular realm of enquiry. I fear you must address this head on if you wish to progress your argument.

See above. The essential dispute here seems to be that you wish to limit consideration only to the complete claim as made by the theist as opposed to recognizing that there is a) a claim of the existence of God; and b) a claim about the nature of God. These are two separate claims and should be considered as such in order to draw rational conclusions. In the case of the second claim, it is clearly rational to conclude that it is an irrational claim because it is founded on a tautology. In the case of the first claim, when properly divorced from the second claim, the rational conclusion is "indeterminate."

If your are to maintain your claim to be engaging in rational discourse, it is your duty to meet the challenges of others also, not to simply declare them errant by dint of a failure to accept your self-asserted position as the sole arbiter of reason and logic. Please address the points as made rather than recasting them to suit your argument alone. This is called intellectual honesty, and without it rational discourse cannot proceed.

I believe that is what I'm doing. The question seems to be what we are rationally discoursing about. I'm discoursing about reason and logic. What are you discoursing about?

I do not hold you responsible for my failings, only for your own, and we might even cover some ground on this basis if it wasn't apparent that your chief concern is being seen to be correct on all matters.

When I'm wrong, I'll admit it. So far....

[Seth]

If we want to define "God", my view is that there are two factors we require. By this definition, God is a being that, among other things....

1. Is much more powerful that the human species
2. Interacts with humans so as to make our lives better or worse.

It is quite possible there may be superior beings in other galaxies, or living close to distant star systems, or made out of non interacting dark matter, or even in other universes, that have no interaction with humans, and therefore do not affect us in any way possible. I would exclude such beings from the definition on the simple grounds that they do not matter to us as humans.

Bearing in mind the above two requirements for a deity, my opinion, based on the dearth of credible evidence, is that the probability of a deity existing is very low.

Seth, is that statement acceptable to you?

Yes, I think those criteria are reasonable, although I might amend slightly to say simply "capable of physical interaction with matter in this universe." I say this because "interacting" is vague enough to include, for example, God nudging an asteroid out of orbit in the oort cloud 70 million years ago so as to wipe out the dinosaurs and give mammals their shot. I would not make it a necessary condition that the entity has any particular interest in humans, although it certainly may...or may not.

[Brian Peacock]

The Atheist's Fallacy states that you are making a logical error by assuming that the claim that God is supernatural defines the question of whether or not God exists.

Lol. This is the claim. The claim, this is. This is not an assumption on the part of theists or atheists, this is (an allbeit simple formulation of) the central, primary, contingent, objective claim of theism. What you are saying is that we shouldn't even countenance such a claim. SO, that being the case, what is the significant or meaningful difference between withholding proportioning assent to the claim and simply ignoring it?

[Seth]

Brian

I am responding to Seth.
From his specific viewpoint, he has a valid point. We can and do rebut the idea of 'God' from the stance of a Christian or Muslim. But that still does not rebut other ideas or models of deity. So Seth claims, and rightly from his idea of deity, that we have not shown that deity is non existent or unlikely.

I get that BG. For myself I sometimes think about it this way...

If some tribe or whatever say that the one true god Dhango created the world and lives in that cave over there, then we'd rub our hands together because we'd have something to which we have access. We could go into the cave and explore it for traces and signs of Dhango. But say we did that and didn't find any evidence for Dhango, all we found was evidence for the usual type of cave stuff, and so we say to the chief, "We have searched every crack and crevice and yet we did not find Dhango. Perhaps Dhango doesn't exist or doesn't live there", an the chief replies, "No, you are wrong. You do not know our ways. Dhango is in that cave, even now - his spirit is strong in that place" - then what do we have? We have a definition of a god which is necessarily unfalsifiable because it is, by definition, beyond observation; supernatural.

There's your error again. Do not presume that merely because the claimant characterizes the thing in terms of perceptions unique to the claimant that the claim is false or that the thing is unknowable. It may be that Dhango's spirit does indeed reside in the cave and that Dhango choose not to allow you to perceive him for reasons of his own.

This is the trap that Atheists often fall into. They view a claim skeptically, as they should, but when they do not find evidence that they believe supports the claim they too often come to the false conclusion that such evidence does not exist. Merely because one does not perceive or understand the evidence which may exist doesn't mean the evidence does not exist, particularly when it comes to a sentient entity of some sort who is capable of, and interested in revealing itself only to a select group of humans.

Seth plays a gambit favoured by many apologists, asserting that a certain set of conditions apply in a given realm of enquiry which mean that the very absence of a thing, or traces of or evidence for its existence, is cited as among its marvellous and wonderful atrributes and properties. E.G. God is that which is beyond human understanding, perception or comprehension. And so 'we', the sceptical challengers, often get drawn into an ontological discussion about what type of thing can and/or does exist for which no-evidence and no-trace are, or can be said to be, legitimate components of a defintion of its properties or attributes.

Absolutely false. In fact I've refuted this argument in another post. Please remember that criticizing your logic does not mean that I am therefore accepting the logic of theists. I'm not. A tautological claim with respect to the nature of God as being ineffable does not affect the actual existence or non existence of God, which is a separate question entirely.

[Seth]

The Atheist's Fallacy states that you are making a logical error by assuming that the claim that God is supernatural defines the question of whether or not God exists.

Lol. This is the claim. The claim, this is. This is not an assumption on the part of theists or atheists, this is (an allbeit simple formulation of) the central, primary, contingent, objective claim of theism. What you are saying is that we shouldn't even countenance such a claim. SO, that being the case, what is the significant or meaningful difference between withholding proportioning assent to the claim and simply ignoring it?

No, that's two entirely different claims. The first claim is that God exists. The second claim is that God has certain attributes. The second claim may be false while the first claim may be true.

My concern is with a person of reason stating a counter claim that God does not exist because the second claim of attributes of God is demonstrably tautological.

[Brian Peacock]

Brian

I am responding to Seth.
From his specific viewpoint, he has a valid point. We can and do rebut the idea of 'God' from the stance of a Christian or Muslim. But that still does not rebut other ideas or models of deity. So Seth claims, and rightly from his idea of deity, that we have not shown that deity is non existent or unlikely.

I get that BG. For myself I sometimes think about it this way...

If some tribe or whatever say that the one true god Dhango created the world and lives in that cave over there, then we'd rub our hands together because we'd have something to which we have access. We could go into the cave and explore it for traces and signs of Dhango. But say we did that and didn't find any evidence for Dhango, all we found was evidence for the usual type of cave stuff, and so we say to the chief, "We have searched every crack and crevice and yet we did not find Dhango. Perhaps Dhango doesn't exist or doesn't live there", an the chief replies, "No, you are wrong. You do not know our ways. Dhango is in that cave, even now - his spirit is strong in that place" - then what do we have? We have a definition of a god which is necessarily unfalsifiable because it is, by definition, beyond observation; supernatural.

There's your error again. Do not presume that merely because the claimant characterizes the thing in terms of perceptions unique to the claimant that the claim is false or that the thing is unknowable. It may be that Dhango's spirit does indeed reside in the cave and that Dhango choose not to allow you to perceive him for reasons of his own.

Nah, there's no error. Invoking 'the supernatural' does not render a claim a profound or meaningful or coherent or non-trivial concern. It is reasonable to put aside personal testimony because the plural of evidence isn't anecdote - personal testimony is only evidence of belief or certainty.

[Seth]

Brian

I am responding to Seth.
From his specific viewpoint, he has a valid point. We can and do rebut the idea of 'God' from the stance of a Christian or Muslim. But that still does not rebut other ideas or models of deity. So Seth claims, and rightly from his idea of deity, that we have not shown that deity is non existent or unlikely.

I get that BG. For myself I sometimes think about it this way...

If some tribe or whatever say that the one true god Dhango created the world and lives in that cave over there, then we'd rub our hands together because we'd have something to which we have access. We could go into the cave and explore it for traces and signs of Dhango. But say we did that and didn't find any evidence for Dhango, all we found was evidence for the usual type of cave stuff, and so we say to the chief, "We have searched every crack and crevice and yet we did not find Dhango. Perhaps Dhango doesn't exist or doesn't live there", an the chief replies, "No, you are wrong. You do not know our ways. Dhango is in that cave, even now - his spirit is strong in that place" - then what do we have? We have a definition of a god which is necessarily unfalsifiable because it is, by definition, beyond observation; supernatural.

There's your error again. Do not presume that merely because the claimant characterizes the thing in terms of perceptions unique to the claimant that the claim is false or that the thing is unknowable. It may be that Dhango's spirit does indeed reside in the cave and that Dhango choose not to allow you to perceive him for reasons of his own.

Nah, there's no error. Invoking 'the supernatural' does not render a claim a profound or meaningful or coherent or non-trivial concern. It is reasonable to put aside personal testimony because the plural of evidence isn't anecdote - personal testimony is only evidence of belief or certainty.

Again, I'm not talking about putting aside or dismissing, I'm talking about making a counter claim as a conclusion.

[Brian Peacock]

No, you mean you're just willing to divorce the conclusion from the context of the claim, again.