So, what Scientific Evidence do you have that Caesar crossed the Rubicon ? What Scientific Evidence do you have that the Laws of Logic exist ??
Define your terms. What exactly do you want evidence for?
What terms would you like me to define ? After all, I did already give the scholarly definition of 'evidence' which I go by..
And that is a classical apologist goal post moving, pretending that something that is claimed to have acted and has/had effects in our physical reality is a whole different question than does logic exist.
Forgive me, but you're misapplying the 'Moving the Goalposts' fallacy, which occurs in response
to a request for evidence that has already been met. Further, simply asking questions is not "Moving the Goalposts." I asked you one set of questions - which you did not answer. Please, the questions stand: given your response on what you consider to be 'evidence,' I would like to know what 'evidence' you have for, etc.
Btw, what is your definition of God
Maximally supreme being. And yours ?
And isn´t "you can not proof that reality is real" the last chapter of the apologists handbook? There is no point arguing about anything without accepting that reality is real first.
Now we can properly identify an informal fallacy: Poisoning the Well. Please, accept my words as they stand without trying to cast disparities upon who I am, an apologist; you are equally an apologist for God being a myth, but I will not dismiss your words based solely on that fact alone.
(PS - Yes, we can prove that reality is real; to think otherwise is amateurish freshman-level mental masturbation; there's a reason that academic philosophers don't dwell upon such things)
Trying to move goal post? But i´ll play: the god hypothesis has been tested time and time again, knowing more about God, his creation and how he did it, was after all the force that created science. Given that the hypothesis has failed every test we could devise so far, we always seem to find a natural explanation once we have figured out how to collect data, if becomes rather absurd to pursuit that hypothesis.
Once again, I have not asked you for further/greater "evidence" since you have not responded to me in the first place. You seem to be evading, though. I hope that is not the case.
What is the "natural explanation" for the Laws of Logic which your purported rationality presupposes ? What is the "natural explanation" for the origin/cause of the Big Bang ? What is the "natural explanation" for the Cambrian Explosion ?
I could go on & on, but I don't want to overload you, so please seriously engage with these few questions first.
...the tests the god hypothesis has failed, that by your own definition have pretty much evidenced God out of existence, generally, not just a specific one. The "don´t know, don´t care, don´t do anything after holding a match to creation" God of the theists is the only possible god remaining, unless you want to believe in a god that fakes all the natural causes to.. mm.. be evil i guess.
Forgive me, but, what ? Is that supposed to be a coherent statement ?
We have much, much more data supporting Marcus Aurelius miraculous victory in a battle against hordes of barbarians somewhere in today´s Czech Republic (or Slovakia), where the Egyptian sorcerer Harnouphis cast a spell to bring Hermes to destroy those barbarians with lightning and thunder.
We found an inscription from that time in the area, naming Harnouphis traveling with a roman legion, we have an eyewitness autograph describing the events smack in Rome, we have coins commemorating it, minted directly after the event. Religious people wouldn´t stop partying if they only had one of those..... if only the prior probability wasn´t that low. We have zero evidence for magic/miracle (both mean the same) being real, and hence all those bits of data still don´t make the event likely.
Most interesting about that story, Christians hijacked it........ he had a Legion consisting only of Christians, funny considering Marcus Aurelius considered Christians traitors, that prayed and god did the Thunder and Lightning stuff.......
Um, okay. Relevance ?
What exactly is your source for "Christians hijacking the story of Marcus Aurelius in Czechia" ? And where exactly was the story interpolated ??
(PS - Where in Czechia are you ?
They are lawyers, they will consider anything as evidence that helps their case.
Kind of like how you rely on the eyewitness testimonies of the aforementioned Aurelian events in Czechia to make your point ?
Eyewitnesses are fairly useless. Remember we have an eyewitness autograph of freaking Egyptian magic, smack in the middle of Rome, seen by lots of other eyewitnesses and no one felt a need to contradict it. That is how "good" eye witnesses are.
My friend, no offense, but your words betray a gross ignorance of Historical Methodology; by your own statement, the overwhelming majority of classical history must be dismissed.
So, am I correct in that you don't believe that the earth orbits the sun, because astronomy is supported by "evidence" ?
I don´t think i ever used "believe" in this context even colloquially. Since there is no data contradicting it, that is just a fact to be accepted, not believed.
Bro, you are killing me. I implore you, study some epistemology. Sort your terms. You are jumping off a cliff with a noose around your neck, and as much as I wish I had the time & patience to walk you through this, I'm afraid that my job & family are higher responsibilities to me.
The atheistic claim to "reason" is more a matter of public relations than competence in reasoned debate.