standard of evidence

[Brian37]

That's not what you said in post #103. Make up your mind.

I said:

as I've said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. if theism lacks substantiating evidence, all that shows is that the proposition hasn't been established to be true.

how is that inconsistent with what I just said?

I've said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Then by that absurd logic, you are mandated by consistency purposes to accept any utterance a human may make on any subject.

Me, "How do you know I am not a billionaire"

You, "Can I see your bank statement"

Me, "No, it is invisible. But banks exist and billionaires exist, so just trust me"

Or,

Me, "I am fucking Angelina Jolie right now as I type this"

You, "Prove it, let me watch you both fuck on Skype"

Me, "Perv! She exists and I exist, so therefore by proxy of utterance it is true"

There are lots of claims you rightfully reject and don't assume are true because the other person making the claim doesn't have evidence.

You have as much evidence for your pet god claim as the Egyptians had for their sun god, the irony is that they had more to physically point at than you do.