I am atheist,but I do not like science.

[CliveStaples]

Agreed, but the matter of the fact is that the evidence is out there. Time elapses and it can be measured.

You're not thinking through your assumptions. How do you know that time elapses?

Why don't we cut to the chase here? What is it that you're essentially getting at? Your own arguments don't seem to work for God. What is a 'Jesus'? The universe spontaneously came into being as I pressed the full stop key for this sentence.

I don't know what you mean, here. My arguments "don't seem to work for God"? They aren't about God. They're about how we know things.

---

Clive,

You should be embarrassed as a professional mathematician conflaitng my use of the word likely with mathematical probability. You should know more than others that the scenario I presented cannot be addressed probabalistically. I cannot and would never attempt to assign probability to either.

Well, if you're not using "likely" to mean probability, then I have no idea what you mean by it. When someone says "A is more likely than B", I understand that to mean P(A) > P(B).

I am relieved to learn that you do not seriously consider the stupid proposition that you gave another AF member; namely, how can you be sure that we weren't created some short time ago with seemingly older entities and historic events only having the appearance of age. This is the bullshit I attempted to dispell.

That's not a proposition. "How can you be sure that we weren't created recently, but with the appearance of age?" is a question. It isn't "true" or "false".

I consider that a serious question. If you don't think it's serious, then I don't think you've though through what implications it would have on evidentialism.

P or not-P. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at; however, I can almost smell a disengenuous use of Bayes' Theorem following.

P or not-P? Huh?

The options you gave were mutually exclusive, but not exhaustive.