Clearly define the object (god/spirit/magic), what it can do (the mechanisms of interaction with reality), predict data produced by these mechanisms alone, & not by other means. Show the data and the method of collection.
Then you can say you have evidence.
@fejimanz @AtheistBigfoot Not allowing a felon to run a country and give him all sorts of other critical responsibilities isn't ruining his life.
The context was given. It's not a sweeping statement.
@DScottBrothers @iamAtheistGirl Proving negatives >within< logical frameworks is possible. Doing so >outside< of logical frameworks (e.g. through scientofic inference) is impossible, because logical frameworks only describe, not prescribe, reality.
@DScottBrothers @iamAtheistGirl Logical impossibility implies proving a negative. Proving negatives is not impossible, e.g. it's impossible to find a whole number which multiplied by itself will give 2. Lagrange Lectures on Elementary Mathematics (1898).
@SunstonedAlone @BCFunksta @olga100104@Stroudarian Absence of >expected< evidence is evidence of absence.
This is especially the the case when contradictory evidence is found. The non-contradictory evidence is then of course absent!
@SunstonedAlone @BCFunksta @olga100104@Stroudarian Absence of >expected< evidence is evidence of absence.
This is especially the the case when contradictory evidence is found. The non-contradictory evidence is then of course absent!
@PumaBare Would you like to try to convince me? @PumaBare
Please don't just give up because you don't like my argumentation. If there is something logically inconsistent between your reasoning and mine, please show it.