What do believers say when you ask or tell them..

[Ryft]

[To my knowledge], objective, credible evidence conforming to the standards of scientific method backing up a God claim has not been put forth by anyone ... Is the claim true? In my experience, yes.

I see, so given everything you've said up to this point, you're telling us, "If I'm not aware of objective evidence, then objective evidence doesn't exist."

TAVARISH: There is no objective evidence to support the claim that God exists.
ARCANUS: Is that claim true?
TAVARISH: Yes.
ARCANUS: On what basis is that claim true?
TAVARISH: On the basis that I'm not aware of any such evidence.

I'm trying to illustrate that God, as an objective claim, has no accompanying objectively verifiable evidence supporting him.

Right. If you're not aware of such evidence, then such evidence doesn't exist. Very solipsist of you.

The problem, Tavarish, is with your truth claim; i.e., it doesn't represent what you actually mean. Instead of asserting the truth claim that there is no such evidence, you should be asserting the truth claim that you're not aware of any such evidence. The former shoulders a burden of proof different from, and quite heavier than, the latter.

TAVARISH: I'm not aware of any objective evidence to support the claim that God exists.
ARCANUS: Alrighty then.

If you have some evidence conforming to that criteria, please present it.

To be as precise as I can, "Why?" Why do I need to present evidence, and why does that evidence have to meet your criteria?

I'm not here to convince you to believe this or that, I'm not here to convert people to accept the ideas and convictions I have. I'm not here to tell people what to think, Tavarish, but rather how to think, to shake people out of cognitive autopilot by presenting challenges that force them to self-evaluate their beliefs and reasonings.

So you can't accept my belief that God exists. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, "So what?"

As I had written in an article last month, one thing that irritates me about the atheist's demand for evidence "is the audacious conceit of their demand, as if somehow their own intellectual sanction is a necessary instrument of validation for whatever claim was aired in their presence. 'Without sufficient evidence to support your claim,' they usually say, 'I am not able to believe it.' That may well be the case but, not to put too fine a point on it, what makes you think your belief is relevant or even required? ... If I tell a friend about an encounter with a ghost, exactly what relevance does their personal belief have to the facts of my experience? Precisely none, so far as I can tell. Surely they are not so presumptuous as to think that nothing can be deemed a fact until it has received their personal approbation. The problems with such a stance are legion and obvious. If I share with them the facts of my experience and they are unable to believe it themselves, what relevance does that have to the event in question? None, quite frankly. Neither the reality of the case nor the facts thereof have anything to do with their ability to believe it."

I'm not asking for objective evidence for a subjective claim here.

Perhaps you didn't mean to, but you actually did. You had been talking about the "belief" that God exists and how the "concept's" existence can only be verified subjectively, which frustrated you because it is objective evidence you ask people for (Msg. 76). But like I said, that's a mistake. Beliefs and concepts are mental furniture belonging to the thinking person, which is subjective by nature. It's like this, Tavarish: people can have beliefs and concepts about me, but I am neither a belief nor a concept. The former exists subjectively, the latter exists objectively.

Personally, the biggest issue I have is that people lack the honesty to say "Yes, it may only be a figment of my imagination." Thankfully, most of the theists here are intellectually honest with themselves and peers.

Okay, I'll bite. Why should I say such a thing? And would my refusal constitute intellectual dishonesty? According to whose criteria might it be an imaginary thing, and by whose criteria is intellectual honesty determined? If not mine, then who is the presumptuous prick that's shoving his views down my throat?

Would you contend that newborns have a inclination toward godless beliefs and values?

No. Would you?

What about those who have no knowledge of a God concept?

And who would that be?

Your assessment works on the presupposition that the atheist would already have a working knowledge of the concept of God, and reject it.

Well yes, "biased" does presuppose functioning cognitive faculties. Is there someone here without such? However, for atheists to be biased they do not necessarily have to reject God claims. Most do (unless your definition of 'atheist' includes Coke bottles and cat turds), but you are ignoring the principle definition, which is that an atheist is biased insofar as he is "far more likely than not to prefer and form beliefs and values that make no reference to God" (e.g., humanism, naturalism, et cetera). You can point to examples of people with impaired or non-existent cognitive faculties and say, "Look, they're not biased!" but I would simply turn your head back to the dictionary and carefully explain that biases, tendencies, and inclinations presuppose thinking persons.

Every thinking person has biases, Tavarish, a particular tendency or inclination toward a perspective, certain values, etc. To not recognize one's biases is to be a slave to them. I'm suspicious of anyone who pretends to not have any.

Also note that I'm talking about atheism being the disbelief in the claim that a God exists, not a claim that no God exists.

Also note that so am I. (However, my view of atheism presupposes functioning cognitive faculties; i.e., a hemorrhoid lacks belief in God but is not an atheist).

We are not born with inherent knowledge of God.

And the "objective, credible evidence conforming to the standards of scientific method backing up" this claim is... ?

Whoa there. It was a general statement, not directed at you personally, not to mention that it's a statement that you agree with.

First, it was indeed directed at me personally: "The fact that you fail to defend your claim ..." (Msg. 76). Second, I agree that if I fail to defend my claim you're afforded no reason to accept it—but I disagree, strongly, that there's any claim I've made and failed to defend (i.e., the "fact" is non-existent). But maybe you were making a different point and worded it clumsily, such as, "If you fail to defend your claim, I'll have no reason to believe it." That would be odd, though, since I had already made that point myself.

For something to be independently and accurately verified, it has to comport with logic and be free of bias.

That didn't answer my question. I'll try again: "What is your standard of evidence for evaluating truth claims?"

You said you used the Bible as evidence ...

No, I did not.

Yes, you did...

Right, like the elaborating conversation which followed that doesn't exist—well, except for the fact that it does:

TAVARISH (Msg. 74): "Why would you use a book that is self-validating as a standard of evidence?"

ARCANUS (Msg. 75): "It's not my standard of evidence. My standards of evidence are broad and varied, as there are many different types of claims that can be subject to evaluation. However, at bottom of my entire world view lies the fundamental presupposition that the Bible is the divinely revealed Word of God. It is the basic axiom upon which everything else is built."

TAVARISH (Msg. 76): "As the foundation of your worldview (the Bible), how would you verify its validity independently?"

ARCANUS (Msg. 87): "It's the fundamental presupposition at bottom of my entire world view, I said. Presuppositions aren't verified, they are presupposed."