Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I never asserted that I would provide evidence.  Additionally, I never offered anything as evidence.  His statement assumes that I did or that it was insufficient.

To this point is is something that is on the table for consideration, but I'm not going to go in circles about something being evidence if it can't be viewed objectively.  If not, there's no point to it, because it can simply be implied that the evidence wasn't acceptable.  If it's defined ahead of time, then I have criteria for any evidence I would need to assert if I choose to.

That's nice, dear...but what logical fallacy can you identify, and what's wrong with the criteria established by the definition of the term, itself?

I already pointed it out.  I didn't assert any evidence.  Do you want the technical name for the fallacy?

No reason to attempt to provide something that isn't adequately defined.  In this case "evidence", it would be a waste of time trying to pick and choose what might be considered adequate.  If it's not objective, then I'm not interested.  If someone else is, then target them for it.

[Deesse23]

Source - Science Clarified

"The term scientific method refers in general to the procedures that scientists follow in obtaining true statements about the natural world. As it happens, scientists actually use all manner of procedures to obtain the information they want. Some of those procedures are not very objective, not very formal, and not very systematic. Still, the "ground rules" by which science tends to operate are distinctive and very different from those by which "true statements" are produced in philosophy, the arts, history, ethics, and other fields of human endeavor."

___ End


You don't know what you are talking about.

Wow, you can google for some random website.
I bet you can google *bigotry* too. At least you dont have an excuse now not to.

[polymath257]

That's nice, dear...but what logical fallacy can you identify, and what's wrong with the criteria established by the definition of the term, itself?

I already pointed it out.  I didn't assert any evidence.  Do you want the technical name for the fallacy?

No reason to attempt to provide something that isn't adequately defined.  In this case "evidence", it would be a waste of time trying to pick and choose what might be considered adequate.  If it's not objective, then I'm not interested.  If someone else is, then target them for it.

Well, given the the supernatural doesn't have any objective evidence in its favor, why have any interest in it?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Source - Science Clarified

"The term scientific method refers in general to the procedures that scientists follow in obtaining true statements about the natural world. As it happens, scientists actually use all manner of procedures to obtain the information they want. Some of those procedures are not very objective, not very formal, and not very systematic. Still, the "ground rules" by which science tends to operate are distinctive and very different from those by which "true statements" are produced in philosophy, the arts, history, ethics, and other fields of human endeavor."

___ End


You don't know what you are talking about.

Wow, you can google for some random website.  
I bet you can google *bigotry* too. At least you dont have an excuse now not to.

How many sources would you like? If my citation wasn't adequate, on what basis didn't it meet your standard(s)?

We study with parameters. If something is "supernatural" how would we establish parameters by something not bound by our natural laws because it supersedes them by how it's defined?

[The Grand Nudger]

That's nice, dear...but what logical fallacy can you identify, and what's wrong with the criteria established by the definition of the term, itself?

I already pointed it out.  I didn't assert any evidence.  Do you want the technical name for the fallacy?

No reason to attempt to provide something that isn't adequately defined.  In this case "evidence", it would be a waste of time trying to pick and choose what might be considered adequate.  If it's not objective, then I'm not interested.  If someone else is, then target them for it.

Yes, max...for the third time, lol...can you identify whatever logical fallacy you think you were dealing with in the quoted text?  

What are you talking about, not adequately defined?  Can you identify what it is, precisely, that makes the definition of the term evidence inadequate?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I already pointed it out.  I didn't assert any evidence.  Do you want the technical name for the fallacy?

No reason to attempt to provide something that isn't adequately defined.  In this case "evidence", it would be a waste of time trying to pick and choose what might be considered adequate.  If it's not objective, then I'm not interested.  If someone else is, then target them for it.

Yes, max...for the third time, lol...can you identify whatever logical fallacy you think you were dealing with in the quoted text?  

What are you talking about, not adequately defined?  Can you identify what it is, precisely, that makes the definition of the term evidence inadequate?

No need to rage dude.  It makes more sense to state the actual fallacy rather than state the specific name of the fallacy.  Must be an atheist thing.

[Deesse23]

Wow, you can google for some random website.  
I bet you can google *bigotry* too. At least you dont have an excuse now not to.

How many sources would you like? If my citation wasn't adequate, on what basis didn't it meet your standard(s)?

We study with parameters. If something is "supernatural" how would we establish parameters by something not bound by our natural laws because it supersedes them by how it's defined?

I am not claiming the supernatural, you do. You make the definition, framework and tools to detect and falsify. I am busy doing my own job, cant do yours as well, sorry. Dont try to use your own intellectual laziness as an excuse to ask others to lower their bars / standards for belief.

If you dont like the scientific method you are free to propose any other, reliable, tool to evaluate your supernatural claims.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, max...for the third time, lol...can you identify whatever logical fallacy you think you were dealing with in the quoted text?  

What are you talking about, not adequately defined?  Can you identify what it is, precisely, that makes the definition of the term evidence inadequate?

No need to rage dude.  It makes more sense to state the actual fallacy rather than state the specific name of the fallacy.  Must be an atheist thing.

Looks like a "no" to both questions.

[polymath257]

Wow, you can google for some random website.  
I bet you can google *bigotry* too. At least you dont have an excuse now not to.

How many sources would you like? If my citation wasn't adequate, on what basis didn't it meet your standard(s)?

We study with parameters. If something is "supernatural" how would we establish parameters by something not bound by our natural laws because it supersedes them by how it's defined?

By making whatever observations are possible, finding patterns in the observed behavior, making hypotheses about those patterns, and testing them with further observations.

And why would you think something exists if it cannot, even in theory, be observed?

[The Grand Nudger]

And why would you think

I can answer that one for him..since he's allergic.  He doesn't think.., what on earth gave you the impression that he did?