What if God is real but quiet to max out your free choices?

[Seth]

Is Seth implying that evidence of god (or gods) existing exists but is not widespread because only initiates with advanced minds can grasp it and act accordingly?

That's one possibility. Another is that human science and understanding is simply not advanced enough to detect, inspect and quantify what evidence is out there to be studied, much as the technology and knowledge to detect, inspect and quantify the existence of sub-atomic particles was not available in Newton's time.

Again, the absence of (identifiable, understandable) evidence is not evidence of the absence of evidence.

It may not (quite) be, but, in the absence of admissible evidence, it is a logical course to act as if there was no such being around. to do otherwise is to take Pascal's wager, and we all know how silly that is.

Only if you falsely presume that the only option of action is belief in the claims, whereas the appropriate scientific action is to view the claim as a challenge and begin applying the scientific method to determining the truth of the question.

But supposed atheist intellectuals refuse to do so, using the Atheist's Fallacy as their excuse to simply ignore the question, which is after all an important scientific question, is it not?

[Hermit]

Your basic argument is that if no objective evidence of the existence of God is available, then the claim that God exists is inherently false.

That is a mis-statement of Brian's position (and the position of most atheists on this forum)

I don't think so, I quoted him saying just that.

The way I read the argument Brian presented, it starts by reminding you that that which is not true is false and that that which is not false is true. It's not even a syllogism. It's an axiom of logic. From that you infer that Brian claims that it can be absolutely established that god does not exist. JimC is correct in observing that you mis-state Brian's position because you ignore what he says next even though you quoted it too:

Yet still, we can account for the middle-ground maybe-position here by charitably granting that this isn't necessarily a closed or settled matter, and allow that perhaps some or any evidence may be brought to the claim at some later point.

Contrary to your interpretation, Brian's statement is not a claim that he absolutely knows god does not exist. Like all knowledge, it is provisional and subject to change if and when evidence comes to light that shows that his knowledge turns out to be false.

So you are not merely mis-stating Brian's position. By ignoring the bit Brian has written about the possibility of new evidence changing his view about god's existence you arrive at the opposite of what he actually said. The claim that God exists is neither inherently false nor inherently true. It is regarded as false or true in light of evidence. New evidence can change the claim either way,and the nature of evidence makes it abundantly clear that such knowledge will always remain provisional.

[Seth]

The way I read the argument Brian presented, it starts by reminding you that that which is not true is false and that that which is not false is true. It's not even a syllogism. It's an axiom of logic.

Yes, it is, but for it to be correct that which is claimed to be not-true must actually be not-true, and that requires evidence of it's not-trueness. The problem is that when applied to the question at the bar, which is "does X exist" one cannot say that the proposition is not-true (and therefore false) without evidence to that effect.

From that you infer that Brian claims that it can be absolutely established that god does not exist.

Well, that's his argument, so far as it goes. I can only examine the argument he has given.

JimC is correct in observing that you mis-state Brian's position because you ignore what he says next even though you quoted it too:

Yet still, we can account for the middle-ground maybe-position here by charitably granting that this isn't necessarily a closed or settled matter, and allow that perhaps some or any evidence may be brought to the claim at some later point.

Contrary to your interpretation, Brian's statement is not a claim that he absolutely knows god does not exist. Like all knowledge, it is provisional and subject to change if and when evidence comes to light that shows that his knowledge turns out to be false.

But this is mere temporizing, not a rational construct. What he in fact is saying is that I am correct, and that the question is unresolved and therefore indeterminate.

His claim is that until such time as evidence proving that X objectively exists is presented the question is resolved as being "not-true" and therefore false. What he is trying to say here is that from the perspective of scientific validity that which is not proven objectively by evidence may (or in this case should) be held to be not-true, which is to say false. The problem here is that science says nothing of the kind. Science says that that which is not objectively proven to be true is indeterminate, not axiomatically false. This is, as you say, an "axiom of logic" because, as I keep saying, the absence of evidence (of objective existence) cannot rationally be viewed as evidence of absence (objective non-existence) because in the absence of evidence it is possible that the thing in question does objectively exist but that science does not yet have a way to detect, examine and quantify the evidence that may exist that proves objective existence.

So you are not merely mis-stating Brian's position. By ignoring the bit Brian has written about the possibility of new evidence changing his view about god's existence you arrive at the opposite of what he actually said. The claim that God exists is neither inherently false nor inherently true. It is regarded as false or true in light of evidence. New evidence can change the claim either way,and the nature of evidence makes it abundantly clear that such knowledge will always remain provisional.

Sorry, but I am NOT misstating his position. You are correct that new evidence can change the postulate either way, but whereas evidence showing objective existence of X can result in a valid rational conclusion that X objectively exists, the obverse is not true! The lack of evidence showing that X objectively exists cannot rationally support a conclusion that X does not exist.

This notion that God doesn't exist until theists prove he does exist with objective scientific evidence is, as I have said, an irrational way of dodging the actual issue. The failure of reasoning in setting conditions upon the burden of proof as an argument that the postulate is false is a very, very common rational and logical error presented by those who simply don't want to ever be required to give the subject rational consideration. Yes, one can simply reject the postulate that X has objective existence because there is no evidence one is aware of proving the claim, but that's an entirely different thing from making the argument that because no such evidence is in the possession of one of the participants to the debate, that therefore not only does X not exist, but that there is no need to examine the postulate and the evidence that does exist, or might exist and might be found through rigorous scientific investigation. That's a complete denial and repudiation of the entire basis of scientific investigation, and it's utterly irrational.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

This notion that God doesn't exist until theists prove he does exist with objective scientific evidence is, as I have said, an irrational way of dodging the actual issue.

Again, deliberately misrepresenting the atheist position. No one is saying that we can be certain that god doesn't exist because no objective proof of his existence has been demonstrated. We are simply saying that, without such evidence, it is perfectly reasonable to
a) not believe in god (belief in a god is a deliberate state of mind, so non belief, as we have said ad nauseam, is different to believing he doesn't exist)
b) live one's life without any reference to the various existing religions or their bewildering (and frequently contradictory) instructions to the faithful...

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

This notion that God doesn't exist until theists prove he does exist with objective scientific evidence is, as I have said, an irrational way of dodging the actual issue.

Again, deliberately misrepresenting the atheist position.

Not really.

No one is saying that we can be certain that god doesn't exist because no objective proof of his existence has been demonstrated. We are simply saying that, without such evidence, it is perfectly reasonable to
a) not believe in god (belief in a god is a deliberate state of mind, so non belief, as we have said ad nauseam, is different to believing he doesn't exist)
b) live one's life without any reference to the various existing religions or their bewildering (and frequently contradictory) instructions to the faithful...

Well, that's one thing Atheist's say. The other thing they say, with mind-numbing frequency is "Theists say that God is supernatural and since nothing supernatural can exist, God does not exist and theists are delusional" or words to that effect. They usually only make the claims you present when the blatant illogic of the above attitude is challenged.

[Hermit]

Sorry, but I am NOT misstating his position. You are correct that new evidence can change the postulate either way, but whereas evidence showing objective existence of X can result in a valid rational conclusion that X objectively exists, the obverse is not true! The lack of evidence showing that X objectively exists cannot rationally support a conclusion that X does not exist.

Brian has never explicitly or implicitly argued that the claim of a god's existence is inherently false. He has only ever argued about what we know about the existence of god(s) in terms of evidence or the lack thereof, and he has acknowledged that this knowledge may change if and when new evidence turns up. You are definitely mis-stating his position.

[Brian Peacock]

So the objective claim that the universe began with a big bang, before evidence was discovered which supported that theory simply failed?

I guess you're having trouble distinguishing between a hypothesis and a theory. I would suggest that before what we call the big-bang was the most parsimonious explanation of the observable evidence then it did fail, and it remained a hypothesis - the claim could not be said to be true therefore the claim could said to be false regardless of whether the big-bang explanation is or isn't the actual objective truth of the beginnings of the Universe.

You see, what we're dealing with here are claims. A claim like this that cannot be said to be true, because it doesn't fit the available evidence or because there is no evidence available, offers us no reason to accept the claim, no reason to proportion assent to the claim, no reason to believe the claim or claimant. The basic principle of logical non-contradiction has it that something cannot be both true and false, and the sceptical approach to claims to knowledge (that God exists) is to operate from the principle that the claim is false until or unless is meets and overthrows all relevant and proportionate challenges to its justification.

This is not inconsistent with anything I have said, including that objectives claims are treated as false unless or until they can be robustly supported. Until that point it is just one of a number of possibilities that might account for the evidence, or any of a virtual infinite number of possibilities that people might imagine and/or propose. Indeed, even in granting that the big-bang is a solidly supported theory does not and has not stopped people examining the question of the Universe's origins in light of new information, or stopped them developing new hypothesis and theories about it. In fact, what appears to be the most parsimonious explanations at present may themselves be overturned, but even so, until or unless robust evidence is available and accounted for we can not proportion assent to any claims or assertions to the effect that this-or-that new or novel hypothesis is the actual objective truth of the matter. Why would or should we be so lax when we have at our disposal a raft of scientific tools, techniques, processes, and secured knowledge for distinguishing shit from gold?

I don't think so.

Apparently not.

While an unevidenced objective claim may be ignored, the claim does not "fail" in the sense that the objective claim is not true because it's unevidenced.

Again, you are confusing the ultimate or objective truth of a thing with the quality and state of the claims made on behalf of that thing. If you want to take Pascal's wager on God be my guest - but your efforts to denigrate the rational capacities of those who see no reason at all to place that kind of bet only exposes your drive to take issue with atheists for being atheists. You want us to accept that the abject failure of god-claims to support themselves is no good reason for not believing them. How do you think that's going?

It is merely unevidenced and therefore the truth of the claim remains in question, but that fact has absolutely no effect on the actual truth or falsity of the claim.

I'm not a betting man, but it's clear that all you're really doing here is holding the door open for some imagined creative, intentioning, supernatural, omni-omni, authoritative, mythical entity proposed in accord with a particular religious tradition. All I'd say is, "Shut that door! You'll catch your death!"

If someone says "I make the claim that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden" the appropriate response is not to say "There are no fairies at the bottom of your garden because fairies are mythical supernatural creatures that do not exist"

Correct, if you want to be all formal about it. The better response is to say, "How do you know this? Show me the evidence." If the evidence does not support the claim then it is quite reasonable to say, "There are no fairies at the bottom of your garden," and perhaps follow that up with, "Fairies are mythical supernatural creatures common in European folklore and fiction. They do not exist outside of our imagination." But sometimes I'll grant we miss a step, or take it as read, because we've heard that kind of rubbish all too often. Cutting to the chase saves a lot of unnecessary arse-ache - but then again, it's not like atheist never put the work in to explicating their position or take it step-by-step is it?

"Cutting to the chase" in this case doesn't cut the mustard, said one aphorism to the other. Yes, it is true that atheistic argumentation takes as read lots of things, all of them entirely unsupported and/or unsubstantiated or inherently fallacious.

You really need to address the substance of what I've said if you want to stand any chance of maintaining this fiction.

What you call "rubbish" may indeed be rubbish and may not thereford support the claim made

Again, and this is getting tiresome now, atheists are addressing the claims and assertions of theist et al...

but again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

..not the ultimate or objective truth of God's existence, and what we might call 'their atheism' is merely a response to or conclusion about those particular kinds of religious claims, assertions, and insistences.

What we are dealing with are the claims and assertions of those who say that "'God exists', is true" and then probably go on to wibble about what everyone else should think and do about that.

I've been quite patient in dealing with your misunderstanding about atheism, that it necessarily depends on reciprocal and equivalent claims to those put forward by theists etc, and I've gone to great lengths to show how a lack of evidence and the paucity of religious justifications in support of the existence of their nominated deity can and are found wholly, and reasonably, unconvincing by those people we call 'atheists'.

And yet you continue to tone-police, set dubious conditions, and declare that atheists never have reasonable, logical or rational grounds for not believing in God, gods, or any other unsupported, un-evidenced, claimed for thing. Basically you seem to be involved in a grand endeavour to disavow atheists as to the reasonableness of their conclusions. As this continues the 'what' of your point takes on progressively less significance and the 'why' progressively more, but that's apologetics I guess.

therefore cutting to the chase cuts out the most important step in a logical, rational argument

You're building your house out of straw here.

Which part of "It's not like atheist never put the work in to explicating their position or take it step-by-step is it?" did you not get? What do you think I'm doing here? You're running with the wrong strand again and painting all atheists into the same corner so you can more easily tar them all with the same brush - as unreasonable, dubious thinkers intent on imposing their authority over the religious by declaration and insistence alone. Not only that, you've just applied another spurious condition to expressions of atheism, to wit: atheists can't just 'cut to the chase' and say they're atheists, they have to lay out the whole rationale before they can even begin to identify themselves as atheist to others. And not only not only that, this is on top of the spurious condition which maintains that whatever an atheist may lay out by way of an explanation for their point of view it is always and necessarily irrational and illogical. Even when it quite clear and obvious that no reciprocal or equivalent claim is being made, or is even needed, to disbelieve theism, you dogmatically maintain that some reciprocal and equivalent claim is actually being made because, well, because you say so.

I guess you're kind of obliged to do all that shifting about now, its just part of your self-ascribed role as the Grande Validador dos Atiemso, and you probably feel you'd lose face if you dropped that façade now. However, as I've said to you already, if you want understand how reasonable the atheist position is compared to the theist position all you have to do is to try and make a case for the existence of God. Until then all you have is tu quoques, repetition, strawmen, the erection of dubious condition (which you don't even apply to yourself), and repetition.

which is to draw all conclusions about a claim based on evidence, not the lack thereof.

Now you're just giving the impression that you don't actually know anything about what atheism is and what atheists say about their atheism - which is a shame because faux ignorance is a discourtesy and discursively disingenuous. If you were genuine in this you'd be addressing what atheists actually say in response to theists claims and assertions, that is; the reasons why atheists say they don't believe theists on this-or-that matter. Instead you're merely disqualifing atheists from ever having or making a point though an undue over-reliance on the well-poisoning tactic of maintaining that whenever someone calls themselves an atheist it marks them down as irrational hypocrites and wrong automatically.

As I said upstream, your just taking issue with atheists for being atheists now - and it's not like you're proposing any alternatives other than, "Just shut up about it guys, and if they ask you just tell 'em you don't have a thought in your head about God. That way they might leave you alone." I suppose telling atheist to shut up and go away it the job of an apologist, so I'm hardly surprised you've stooped that low.

In other words, by cutting to the chase you are making assumptions about the question based on your own prejudices and preconceived notions, all of which are axiomatically based on...well...nothing whatever other than your own skepticism, and drawing a conclusion about anything only on one's skeptical attitudes is not a rational act.

That was a nice story. You have an obvious flair for imaginative construction. Time to finish that novel perhaps?

It doesn't matter if the atheist explicates their position or takes it step by step

Pissing in the well again, just in case we didn't get the point?

if each step is built on a foundation of fallacies and irrational assumptions.

And all you have is tu quoques, repetition, strawmen, the erection of dubious condition (which you don't even apply to yourself), and repetition.. Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but it's not like I haven't put the time into pointing out where and how you've deployed these errancies before is it(?).

One can build an enormous edifice of irrational assumptions based on flawed evidence or the absence thereof, but that doesn't make the argument rational or the conclusions valid.

By your lights no conclusions can ever be secure about any unsupported claim, no matter how ridiculous, far fetch, or fabricated. How big is the Presidents dong again? Surely it must be 12 feet long if it's an inch by now! Radical falliblism is one thing, but epistemic nihilism is not only an impractical lie, it is the very definition of a waste of everyone's time in discussions of this sort.

Just look at Marxism, which is founded on the single slender reed of an unfounded assertion that return on investment is not legitimate labor and therefore is theft of the worker's labor.

Yeah, you're the Grande Validador da Moralidade e Politica too.

Which is of course asinine in the extreme, and yet entire cultures and nations have been founded on that single idiotic assertion and a hundred million people have been murdered in the name of that stupid idea.

Go and post that red herring in a politics thread so I can ignore it in context.

because by doing so you are irrationally (fallaciously) basing your rebuttal on the unsupported claim

If atheism conformed to, consisted of, or was validate by your strawman then yes, you'd have a point. As it stands though, you just don't.

that what is at the bottom of her garden are indeed "fairies" and further you are making specious and unfounded assumptions that the object which is claimed to be a "fairy" is a mythical supernatural creature that does not exist

An understanding of, and a reference to, the relevant literature, an awareness of the development of certain cultural concepts, and a comparison with the myths of other societies, can all, singularly or in the round, give us an entirely supportable means of telling the poor sod that a fairy is not real. Whether they choose to accept this is private matter for them alone.

Yes, but you have to actually do so in a rational manner not simply take it as read, particularly when what you want to take as read is itself both fallacious and potentially wrong.

...tone-policing and repetition.

when in point of fact she could be referring to "fairy shrimp," which do happen to exist and are entirely natural.

In which case, when we refer to 'Faries" here we have to agree that we're talking about the same thing. As I put it before, the word-token "Faries" has to be mutually comprehensible to both questioner and respondent to give the question-answer binding proportionate and relevant semantic context.

Agreed, which means you have to show that the word-token is understood to mean at least roughly the same thing.

Did you not notice that I explained how the word-token 'God' has to be mutually comprehensible to a questioner-respondent paring if the question and its nominated answer are to retain their semantic context, cohesion, and meaning? I'm beginning to think you just trying to wind me up now. You'll have to try harder that that though.

In you scenario, when we, in our role as respondents, say, "You do know that faries are mythical creatures don't you?" the questioner simply has to say, "Oh, I don't mean those kind of faireis, I mean the shrimp. We call them fairies round here," and we all have a good chuckle about the misunderstanding, and then we can reset and ask for evidence: "Show me your shrimp baby!"

Well, you are assuming sans evidence that fairies are in fact "mythical creatures" aren't you?

It's pretty clear now that you didn't read what I wrote, because I actually gave some context for why Faries are a culturally specific myth. You do know what a myth is, don't you?

Let me revert to the multiverse theory that says that merely by thinking of "fairies" as miniature bipedal beings with wings who fly around in gardens causes a universe to come into existence where fairies are not mythical creatures. Fact is that you believe fairies to be mythical creatures, but since your knowledge and understanding of the universe is neither complete nor perfect you cannot actually make an unevidenced claim that this is true, instead you must provide evidence that fairies are mythical creatures, not actual ones, for your claim to be other than irrational. So your rational response might be "Well, it's my understanding that fairies are mythical creatures, so I'm skeptical of your claim, but I'm not certain either way. Shall we go investigate and see if we can find evidence of the truth of your claim?"

Firstly, I'm no here to defend the Multiverse theory, all I'm doing to pointing out that there are no reasonable grounds to believe theists, and that this makes you an 'atheist'.

Secondly, the ontological argument, that if you can imagine the existence of some-thing as existing with certain properties and attributes then one must accept the possibility of the existence of that imagined thing with those properties and attributes, is metaphyical nonsense. If metaphysics could furnish us with real and actua truthful knowledge about the world then we'd all be travelling to the Moon on rocket shoes to be sucked off by Shiva.

Thirdly, tone-policing is boring and trollish.

The same thing is true of god claims.

Not it's not, because when theists talk about God we're all pretty clear about what they mean, not least because they tell us, earnestly and often. There is little confusion about what God represents, there is just no evidence of what God actually is.

And how exactly do theist's god claims, no matter how predictable you might think they are, affect the actual question at the bar?

What you call 'the question at the bar' is "Why should I believe you?" from the atheist's side of the courts, and "Why should you not believe me when I've just told you that God exists and if you don't scar the genitals of your children, wear a special hat on a Friday, and give me a tax break then you're gonna get exactly whatever it is my religion has told you you're gonna get?" from the other.

Again, you're resorting to the Atheist's Fallacy by taking as read the proposition that a theist's claim about God is accurate and factually representative of the actual existence and/or nature of God.

1. This is what theists say about their version of their nominated deity: that their claims and assertions about it are factually accurate. Taking theists at their word is not fallacious even if their claims, assertions and arguments are.
2. Atheist don't believe them.

You cannot base a rational rebuttal on the description of a theist of the supernatural character of god because you have zero evidence that this "god" spoken of is either supernatural or that the "supernatural" is not actually the "natural" that you simply do not understand.

Correct, and in the absence of evidence for the existence of a thing it is quite reasonable to not only withhold proportioning assent to the claim, but also to point out that that lack of evidence gives us absolutely no reason to believe the claim.

Yes, I completely agree. But that is entirely different from stating a conclusion that God does not exist, or even a claim that God is as the theist describes used as the foundation for a critique of the putative actions or intentions of said god.

Athiests are drawing a conclusion about the claims and assertions of theists, end of. It's only you who zealously maintains that doing that is the same as making a reciprocal and equivalent claim.

To all intents and purposes all objective claims are false until demonstrated otherwise even if a hedge or a bet on the claim feels more comfortable or more consistent with what we've been taught or led to expect. The clue is in the word 'objectivity'. Check it out in your nearest dictionary.

This is simply not the case. You are once again posting the fallacious argument that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

You are probably the most uncharitable person I've ever interacted with on the internet. Have you forgotten what I've already said about Scepticism and the soundness of challenging claims to knowledge on the basis of the justification they provide, or are you just ignoring it for shits and giggles?

You twist it to say that the absence of evidence causes an objective claim to be false, which is not necessarily the case, as I have tried very hard to get across to you.

And you Sir have just unduly ignored another relevant qualification. Read what I wrote again and this time account for the 'to all intents and purposes' part, and tally that against the fact that all the atheist ever has to go on are the claims and assertions of theists etc.

This particular debate is not about what theists say or believe

Yes it is, because atheism is a direct response to what theists say, believe, do and insist.

If that is the case, then "atheism" is not actually atheism, it is in fact "anti-theism," which sounds very much like a religious belief to me. A "direct response" to what theists say, believe, do and insist is not "a lack of belief in gods," it is in fact a carefully considered position in direct opposition to such claims and therefore isn't "a" anything, it's a positive assertion of denial of theistic claims, and that ain't atheism.

This is getting silly now.

How do you think anyone would arrive at 'a lack of belief in gods' unless some notions pertaining to putative supernatural entities fitting that description was not already afoot, and exactly how would arriving at 'a lack of belief in gods' not be a 'direct response' to what the proponents of the entities were putting forward? Then you can tell us why reporting that one has arrived at 'a lack of belief in gods in "direct response" to theist claims and assertions' is either a claim or an assertion about anything other than the view one has arrived at.

In short, you cannot make a rational counter-claim about something you have absolutely no evidence about.

But a counter-claim is not necessary. Do keep up. What you insist on calling a counter-claim is just a conclusion about the claims and assertions of others.

Only if that is the case, which much of the time it's not.

It that it then? Is that what you're running with? You're as bad as Davedodo007 who things everyone who advocates gender equality is necessarily defined by the rarest, most novel, and most appalling unpleasant representation of that idea he thinks is possible. He's a big fan of yours btw.

Most of the time it's "I don't believe in God because..." followed usually by a resort to the Atheist's Fallacy, and it is that following assertion that belies the definition of "atheism."

Write a book about it - surely you owe it to the world?

You may of course always refuse to give such claims further consideration, but that's entirely different from trying to say that the claim is false, because you do not know that it is false, you are assuming that it is false, which is not a rational thing to do.

But we know that the claim is not-true don't we? Eh?

We do? No we don't, and no you don't, and that's the point. You are assuming that it's not-true without evidence for that claim.

Uncharitable and disingenuous. I said 'not-tree', which was a clear reference to what I had said previoiusy about claims failing in their own terms and us not therefore not proportioning assent to them. De-contextualising that to stand for a decree by fiat on the objective existence of this-or-that supernatural entity is very poor form imo.

Please apply the logical faculties here you say you value and regard. We are entirely entitled to say that the objective claim is false until it can be supported evidentially, and we remain entitled to do so as long as a falsification for the claim remains regardless of its variations or dependant assertions until or unless that situation changes. This is the reasonable, rational thing to do.

I have explained many times that no, you cannot rationally say an objective claim is false merely because it is unevidenced.

But it's not-true is it? Eh?

It may be indeterminate, but it is not necessarily false.

I've dealt with this misrepresentation already - on numerous occasions, but you keep going if it helps you sleep at night. Nonetheless, if you'd like a soundbite to focus on for the next round, then...

You need to show how withholding proportioning assent to an unevidenced/unsupported claim necessarily entails an explicit reciprocal and equivalence claim and how a mere report about a conclusion on the soundness of the claim itself is necessarily invalid. For this we will take it as read that the conclusion does not consist of a simple contradiction.

[Brian Peacock]

Bloody autocorrict.

[Seth]

Sorry, but I am NOT misstating his position. You are correct that new evidence can change the postulate either way, but whereas evidence showing objective existence of X can result in a valid rational conclusion that X objectively exists, the obverse is not true! The lack of evidence showing that X objectively exists cannot rationally support a conclusion that X does not exist.

Brian has never explicitly or implicitly argued that the claim of a god's existence is inherently false. He has only ever argued about what we know about the existence of god(s) in terms of evidence or the lack thereof, and he has acknowledged that this knowledge may change if and when new evidence turns up. You are definitely mis-stating his position.

No, I'm not, as I quoted. Nonetheless, if his position is as you say that fact only confirms my rebuttal argument because, if what you say is true, then "not-true" is not, in fact, not true, it is conditional on the degree of human understanding and therefore the truth of the postulate is indeterminate, which is exactly what I'm saying.

[Seth]

So the objective claim that the universe began with a big bang, before evidence was discovered which supported that theory simply failed?

I guess you're having trouble distinguishing between a hypothesis and a theory. I would suggest that before what we call the big-bang was the most parsimonious explanation of the observable evidence then it did fail, and it remained a hypothesis - the claim could not be said to be true therefore the claim could said to be false regardless of whether the big-bang explanation is or isn't the actual objective truth of the beginnings of the Universe.

You repeat your fundamental error again and again. Not-true is NOT equal to false where there is ambiguity about the validity of the not-true statement. Not-true in this case means "indeterminate."

hy·poth·e·sis
hīˈpäTHəsəs/
noun
noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
"professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis"
synonyms: theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, assumption; More
notion, concept, idea, possibility
"his “steady state” hypothesis of the origin of the universe"
Philosophy
a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

The fundamental premise of a hypothesis is, as you can see above, that it is nothing more than an argument presented as the basis for reasoning (argument) without any assumption of it's actual truth value.

As for "theory"...

the·o·ry
ˈTHēərē/
noun
noun: theory; plural noun: theories

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
opinion, view, belief, contention
"I reckon that confirms my theory"
principles, ideas, concepts;
philosophy, ideology, system of ideas, science
"modern economic theory"
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
"a theory of education"
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
"my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"

Emphasis added

Since theory and hypothesis are synonyms, your distinction is both hypothetical and theoretical and therefore, by your own reasoning is false because it is not-true.

How's that petard feel between your legs. Ride 'em cowboy!

You see, what we're dealing with here are claims.

Yes, in other words, hypotheses, theories, conjectures, suppositions, speculations, postulations, propositions, premises, surmises, assumptions, or presuppositions.

A claim like this that cannot be said to be true, because it doesn't fit the available evidence or because there is no evidence available, offers us no reason to accept the claim, no reason to proportion assent to the claim, no reason to believe the claim or claimant.

False. You are unwilling to accept it as true because you believe it does not fit the available evidence or because there is no evidence available to you which you are willing to consider. This means that you are justified in not accepting or proportioning assent or belief to the claim, but it does not therefore mean that the claim is objectively false.

The basic principle of logical non-contradiction has it that something cannot be both true and false, and the sceptical approach to claims to knowledge (that God exists) is to operate from the principle that the claim is false until or unless is meets and overthrows all relevant and proportionate challenges to its justification.

There's your point of error. You are incorrectly stating that it's a binary choice of true or false, which is not the case even in formal logic. The third option is "indeterminate." Whatever your claimed hypothetical, theoretical conjecture and speculation about the "skeptical approach" to the existence of X, the logical fact remains that just because the existence of X cannot be proven to be true, that in and of itself does not therefore mean that the existence of X is false, because it is in fact indeterminate in the absence of evidence proving that it is not-true.

You choose to move the rhetorical goal posts yet again by adding "skeptical approach" to the argument as a way of evading the hard logical facts that disprove your thesis, theory, supposition or notion.

You may, as a skeptic, assume for the purposes of argument that a hypothesis, theory, postulate or conjecture is "not-true" until proven to be true, but that is merely a rhetorical device you use for the purposes of argumentation, or in this case evasion of argumentation by dismissal. That you choose to consider a proposition, theory, surmise or assumption about the existence of X to be false until proven true does not in any way prove that X does not exist until such proof is presented to your satisfaction. Your skepticism does not determine the objective truth or falsity of any claim, much less determine the existence or non existence of X.

... (for brevity's sake)

I have explained many times that no, you cannot rationally say an objective claim is false merely because it is unevidenced.

But it's not-true is it? Eh?

Not necessarily, which means it's not "not-true" it's "indeterminate."

It may be indeterminate, but it is not necessarily false.

I've dealt with this misrepresentation already - on numerous occasions, but you keep going if it helps you sleep at night. Nonetheless, if you'd like a soundbite to focus on for the next round, then...

And you've dealt with it wrongly and fallaciously each and every time, as I have consistently demonstrated.

You need to show how withholding proportioning assent to an unevidenced/unsupported claim necessarily entails an explicit reciprocal and equivalence claim and how a mere report about a conclusion on the soundness of the claim itself is necessarily invalid. For this we will take it as read that the conclusion does not consist of a simple contradiction.

Here's how it is shown: If you do not know that X does not exist, you cannot rationally conclude that X does not exist, and you have admitted here and elsewhere that you don't know if X exists and even that X may exist, but you simply won't believe it until it's proven to your satisfaction that X exists.

That, my friend, is nothing more than an admission of your own ignorance and skeptical beliefs that has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the objective truth of the question "Does X exist?" Sorry, but X either exists or does not exist and that remains true in the absence of evidence, which is not evidence of absence.

[Hermit]

if what you say is true, then "not-true" is not, in fact, not true, it is conditional on the degree of human understanding and therefore the truth of the postulate is indeterminate, which is exactly what I'm saying.

And it is what Brian says.

[Seth]

if what you say is true, then "not-true" is not, in fact, not true, it is conditional on the degree of human understanding and therefore the truth of the postulate is indeterminate, which is exactly what I'm saying.

And it is what Brian says.

Except that's explicitly NOT what he says. His exact claim is "not-true == false." This is simply wrong on the failed premise that his use of "not-true" is actually true, which it's not.

[Hermit]

[Seth]

I'll take that as an admission that both you and Brian are wrong.

[Hermit]

I'll take that as an admission that both you and Brian are wrong.

Your take on things is frequently at odds with reality. I'm getting used to noticing your habit.