Absence of Evidence

[Neo-Scholastic]

What you describe would apply to scientific forms of evidence. I believe Popper's falsifiablity test would be a good response, as in "What test could confirm your claim?" Even still, philisophical arguments would fall into a separate class? Paley's watch. Anslem ontological arguement, Godel's proof, etc. Demands for evidence are not appropriate against philisophical proposals and some members start to sound like broken records stubbournly failing to see the distinction.

...provide evidence...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...

C'mon.

we should say "Come up with a precise enough definition [of god] and we will [produce evidence]".

That won't go very far. Few have really considered the full implications of their beliefs. The reply will, "the God of the Bible," as if that were descriptive enough. We both know that theological concepts run the gambit. This Thursday I'm meeting with a group (Theology Pub) to discuss Christology and I'm sure there will be a variety of opinions expressed.