(October 3, 2021 at 4:13 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:(October 3, 2021 at 4:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Appearance of design is not the same as evidence for design.
And what do you suggest, that we neglect the appearances that reach our senses?
The problem of other minds is very useful here to think about. The appearance of other people is not the same as evidence for people. Should we endorse solipsism, then?
No. But appearances need to be upheld by hypotheses and rigorous testing of those hypotheses. Any hypothesis that is inherently untestable can be dismissed as not being an explanation at all.
Quote:(October 3, 2021 at 4:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The prevalence of pediatric bone cancer is irrelevant.
It is relevant actually. If you are trying to reject theism based on observations of bone cancer or other instances of evil, then you have to prove that evil is prevalent under the assumption of theism.
(October 3, 2021 at 4:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: there is nothing that is not evidence of God.
Attaboyyy. I completely agree.
Which means that the 'God Hypothesis' is inherently untestable. And *that* is enough to disqualify it as a reasonable explanation of anything.