[video] Sagan brilliance

[MkII]

So wait, you're now trying to use the argument that because there is no evidence, that's evidence? But you've already said that god supervises and is involved in the universe. Involvement requires action, action requires a result, therefore involvement means that there should be evidence.

Not at all. If God created everything, then everything is evidence of God's creation yes? God's observable nature is that he doesn't leave verifiable evidence.

 

A more complete and logical coherence would not then fragment into so many different sects with individual beliefs - the authenticity of the tenets would be self-evident through logical evaluation. Segmentation denotes that the religion is not coherent.

Non sequitur. Christianity is united by the Nicene Creed of 381. Absolutely every Christian (by Christian definition) agrees completely with that, and are united in it. Any divisions within the church are of little significance to the underlying tenets agreed upon by all.

 

I call it faith - not based on any information. As for empirical evidence you appear to be arguing the same way as me - that there is no proof, no empirical evidence, no justification, just faith. Faith relies on the acceptance of a theory despite the lack of evidence.

I already explained the requirements for Christian faith... that it has to be based on information that is trusted to be true. Absolutely there cannot be empirical evidence.. that's built into Christianity. You need to keep evidence and empirical evidence separate to keep your statements coherent.

 

And for your last statement about thinking fallaciously, basing decisions on empirical evidence is not thinking fallaciously I'm afraid to say. I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion. I'm not even sure if your arguments are still coherent here.

It's quite simple. You're applying a rule which doesn't apply. In a strict observation of verifiable proofs then empirical evidence is useful. Once you observe a subject which doesn't have verifiable proofs how can you introduce the lack of verifiable evidence as relevant? It's a nonsense consideration.

 

So Christianity is not automatically correct, it is just better and more developed?

Christianity is more logically coherent and complete.

 

You cannot separate the issue of belief in $deity from religion itself. Therefore any arguments which apply to the existence of $deity apply to the validity of religion. The practices of a religion itself can be argued about separately, but still can only be valid if the base assumption that $deity exists is true.

You're combining of the two clearly misrepresents either faith or religion. Religion is a coherent model of belief. Faith is the acceptance as truth of information presented.

 

So you don't claim that it's true for anyone else, just that anyone who believes differently from you is inferior and arguing from a weaker position? I'm sorry to say that I've not really noticed any strength in your arguments, or really any true arguments. Your claims seem to be centralised around -

 

- I believe, therefore $diety is

- My particular sect of Christianity is more developed (by my definition), therefore it is superior

 

Please correct me if I've somehow missed something more solid in your arguments.

What I've said is we all must do that (believe our own conclusions to be correct) to be true to ourselves. My position is simply to state that the playing field is level. Your position must therefore state that the playing field isn't level, and that only you are right. Or do you concede that both our world views are equally valid, whilst modestly asserting that you hold your world view to be right for you.

 

To correct your conclusions :

- I believe through faith, therefore $deity 'is' for me

- I've rationalised my world view

[localzuk]

Ok I think where I'm getting confused is when you use the word 'evidence' and then say it is different to empirical evidence. Evidence, by its very nature is either proof for or against something. Please stop trying to use 'evidence' as something which can be used in anything other than its traditional meaning - ie. proof.

[mattx]

Oh come on you lot - everyone knows that George Lucas is god.

[mavhc]

Christianity is more logically coherent and complete.

Explain how/why.

 

The Evolution of Religion

 

In the beginning any religion worked out, if you predicted anything right you were worshiped. Then we began to record things, keep track of predictions. The religions that got more things right won out, survival of the fittest. Religions merged, mutated, created new offshoots.

 

Over time we learned more science, now the religion that predicted that not paying the sarcrifice to the god to make the sun rise ended up with no followers, gradually religions predicted less and less, signs that god existed were explained away as natural phenomena.

 

Today the only religions that haven't been abandoned are ones that predict nothing, have no proof that god exists, in fact make a point that no proof is needed. The only god left is the one that isn't falsifiable

 

A statistical proof that god doesn't exist:

http://sites.google.com/site/mavhc5/GodGraph.svg

[jamesb]

Not at all. If God created everything, then everything is evidence of God's creation yes? God's observable nature is that he doesn't leave verifiable evidence.

 

No, that's not an observable nature. That is an absence of evidence. It's somewhat like saying that there are aliens among us, because you can't see them. You can prove anything you want that way, so long as you can't provide any evidence for it.

 

Non sequitur. Christianity is united by the Nicene Creed of 381. Absolutely every Christian (by Christian definition) agrees completely with that, and are united in it. Any divisions within the church are of little significance to the underlying tenets agreed upon by all.

 

Sorry, would that be the original or revised Nicene creed?

 

I already explained the requirements for Christian faith... that it has to be based on information that is trusted to be true. Absolutely there cannot be empirical evidence.. that's built into Christianity. You need to keep evidence and empirical evidence separate to keep your statements coherent.

 

You cannot separate empirical evidence and evidence. You are suggesting a difference where there is none. If you have to rely on faith for your information, your information is not evidence. Please try to stick to the common definitions, it makes everything so much easier.

 

It's quite simple. You're applying a rule which doesn't apply. In a strict observation of verifiable proofs then empirical evidence is useful. Once you observe a subject which doesn't have verifiable proofs how can you introduce the lack of verifiable evidence as relevant? It's a nonsense consideration.

 

You cannot observe something which does not have verifiable proofs. Observation is a verifiable proof - it can be reproduced, replicated and demonstrated. Suggesting that observation and proof are separate things is nonsense.

 

Christianity is more logically coherent and complete.

 

I would have to say that your own arguments have completely invalidated this statement.

 

You're combining of the two clearly misrepresents either faith or religion. Religion is a coherent model of belief. Faith is the acceptance as truth of information presented.

 

Religion is based on faith. Faith is the acceptance of a tenet in absence of all evidence. I am not combining the two, but pointing out that one relies on the other.

 

What I've said is we all must do that (believe our own conclusions to be correct) to be true to ourselves. My position is simply to state that the playing field is level. Your position must therefore state that the playing field isn't level, and that only you are right. Or do you concede that both our world views are equally valid, whilst modestly asserting that you hold your world view to be right for you.

 

I have never stated any level of superiority over Christians, or any other religion, or athiests. You have stated that if someone disagrees with you, their world view is inferior. I concede that all religions are equally valid, or invalid. However it is evident that you do not understand my world view in the slightest.

 

Incidentally Christianity is an evangelical religion. If you accept it's tenets should you not also be trying to convince others of it's truth? If you do not accept its tenets, should you really be calling yourself a Christian?

 

To correct your conclusions :

- I believe through faith, therefore $deity 'is' for me

- I've rationalised my world view

 

You have not rationalised your world view, as you have made no attempt to evaluate your basic, accepted axioms.

[jamesb]

Explain how/why.

 

The Evolution of Religion

 

In the beginning any religion worked out, if you predicted anything right you were worshiped. Then we began to record things, keep track of predictions. The religions that got more things right won out, survival of the fittest. Religions merged, mutated, created new offshoots.

 

Over time we learned more science, now the religion that predicted that not paying the sarcrifice to the god to make the sun rise ended up with no followers, gradually religions predicted less and less, signs that god existed were explained away as natural phenomena.

 

Today the only religions that haven't been abandoned are ones that predict nothing, have no proof that god exists, in fact make a point that no proof is needed. The only god left is the one that isn't falsifiable

 

A statistical proof that god doesn't exist:

http://sites.google.com/site/mavhc5/GodGraph.svg

 

There's a book you should read. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. It provides a much better basis for religion than simple superstition, and is a fascination read as well.

[MkII]

Ok I think where I'm getting confused is when you use the word 'evidence' and then say it is different to empirical evidence. Evidence, by its very nature is either proof for or against something. Please stop trying to use 'evidence' as something which can be used in anything other than its traditional meaning - ie. proof.

Please learn the difference then. Evidence or proof that is personal to you and convinces you would be evidence would it not? Evidence which could be reproduced independently is empirical evidence. when considering faith personal non repeatable evidence is what you're dealing with. If you want to say all evidence has to be independently verifiable then you deny the truth of the matter.

[MkII]

Explain how/why.

 

The Evolution of Religion

 

In the beginning any religion worked out, if you predicted anything right you were worshiped. Then we began to record things, keep track of predictions. The religions that got more things right won out, survival of the fittest. Religions merged, mutated, created new offshoots.

 

Over time we learned more science, now the religion that predicted that not paying the sarcrifice to the god to make the sun rise ended up with no followers, gradually religions predicted less and less, signs that god existed were explained away as natural phenomena.

 

Today the only religions that haven't been abandoned are ones that predict nothing, have no proof that god exists, in fact make a point that no proof is needed. The only god left is the one that isn't falsifiable

 

A statistical proof that god doesn't exist:

http://sites.google.com/site/mavhc5/GodGraph.svg

You make the common mistake of thinking that religion has anything to do with factual knowledge. If you considered religion as the subject it is rather than the subject it isn't, you'd be able to appreciate both rather than dismiss one on the premise of the other.

[MkII]

@ jamesb :

You've deliberately misrepresented what I've said many times now. I understand your world view completely. I have not attempted to convince you of my beliefs, that's not what I want to do here. I've simply defended my world view against illogical opposition. Your attempt to goad me into preaching falls on deaf ears I'm afraid.

 

Thanks for your opinion that I haven't rationalised my world view. Your claim of mind reading powers hasn't gone unnoticed.

[localzuk]

It still comes down to the thing I stated originally - religious believers don't follow a world view which anyone with a scientific mind could call rational or logical. To me, I just can't contemplate the religious world - it makes no sense, as it always turns to wordy circular arguments without any possible conclusion or actual physical proof.

 

The way I lead my life is via a utilitarian philosophy as much as possible. It allows a moral existence to be had, whilst also following a scientifically or mathematically provable set of outcomes. ie. If I went around killing people, there would be an end result of massive unhappiness, whereas if I go around doing good things and helping people, I get the opposite. Kind of like a giant mathematical equation.

 

I have yet to come across a single argument for religion that makes sense to me.

Edited August 3, 2010 by localzuk

[jamesb]

Please learn the difference then. Evidence or proof that is personal to you and convinces you would be evidence would it not? Evidence which could be reproduced independently is empirical evidence. when considering faith personal non repeatable evidence is what you're dealing with. If you want to say all evidence has to be independently verifiable then you deny the truth of the matter.

 

So because some require that all evidence must be demonstrable to a third party, they are denying the truth of the matter?

 

I really, really hope you never end up doing jury service.

 

You make the common mistake of thinking that religion has anything to do with factual knowledge. If you considered religion as the subject it is rather than the subject it isn't, you'd be able to appreciate both rather than dismiss one on the premise of the other.

 

But the point I and others have been trying to make is that it is not factual, no religion is, and therefore there is no difference in the suppositions on which any religion is based. Hence they are all equally valid.

 

You've deliberately misrepresented what I've said many times now. I understand your world view completely. I have not attempted to convince you of my beliefs, that's not what I want to do here. I've simply defended my world view against illogical opposition. Your attempt to goad me into preaching falls on deaf ears I'm afraid.

 

You don't understand my world view in the slightest, seeing as you hold to a conflicting perspective where evidence is not required to draw a conclusion.

 

As for defending against illogical supposition, and not trying to convince anyone of your beliefs, you have repeatedly stated that your faith is more developed. As an example:

 

Christianity is more logically coherent and complete.

 

Implying therefore that any system which is not Christianity is less logically coherent and complete. A somewhat ridiculous statement.

 

Thanks for your opinion that I haven't rationalised my world view. Your claim of mind reading powers hasn't gone unnoticed.

 

- I believe through faith, therefore $deity 'is' for me

- I've rationalised my world view

 

Faith has no place in a rational world view. These two statements cannot both be true if you are using rationalised in it's philosophical sense. If on the other hand you are using it as one dictionary definition has, that to rationalise is to "defend, explain away or make excuses by reasoning" then yes.

[MkII]

@ localzuk :

Yes I hear that a lot. It seems a restrictive view to me. A refusal to compartmentalise science where science is compartmentalised. It's called the philosophy of science... science applied as a world view.

[localzuk]

@ localzuk :

Yes I hear that a lot. It seems a restrictive view to me. A refusal to compartmentalise science where science is compartmentalised. It's called the philosophy of science... science applied as a world view.

 

There isn't such a thing as compartmentalising science to me - everything in the world is answerable via science. Give me an example of something which isn't? (Note, questions such as 'what's the meaning of life?' are non-questions to me also - they are there to try to justify things that need no justification.)

[MkII]

So because some require that all evidence must be demonstrable to a third party, they are denying the truth of the matter?

For a subject that demands there be no evidence, clearly yes.

 

But the point I and others have been trying to make is that it is not factual, no religion is, and therefore there is no difference in the suppositions on which any religion is based. Hence they are all equally valid.

That would be to suspend judgement where you have the faculty to do so.

 

You don't understand my world view in the slightest, seeing as you hold to a conflicting perspective where evidence is not required to draw a conclusion.

I don't hold a conflicting perspective. I can use both methods to consider a problem, where you limit yourself to only one.

 

As for defending against illogical supposition, and not trying to convince anyone of your beliefs, you have repeatedly stated that your faith is more developed. As an example:

I was responding to specific questioning.

 

Implying therefore that any system which is not Christianity is less logically coherent and complete. A somewhat ridiculous statement.

Yet unrefuted.

 

Faith has no place in a rational world view. These two statements cannot both be true if you are using rationalised in it's philosophical sense. If on the other hand you are using it as one dictionary definition has, that to rationalise is to "defend, explain away or make excuses by reasoning" then yes.

To draw that conclusion requires a confused view of the components involved, as you've demonstrated. So I'm not surprised that you've concluded it. This is where you chase your tail for quite some time. I suggest we leave it here. Or come where I can get at you on atheistforums.org

[MkII]

Give me an example of something which isn't?

A few examples (of things which aren't answerable via science) here localzuk

[localzuk]

A few examples (of things which aren't answerable via science) here localzuk

 

Well, interesting but lets take the first item in the list 'The government should provide day care'. Firstly, this can be dealt with using economics and therefore mathematics, based on statistical analysis of existing data and observed behaviour.

 

'J.S. Bach is the greatest composer of the eighteenth century'

 

Again, this can be approached mathematically. However, the only difficult issue would be the definition of 'greatest' - but this could be, again, approached via statistics - gather data of what people think 'greatest' to mean in context of music and use that as the basis of the term. I'd guess that most people would opt for a definition along the lines of 'the most popular' and you can easily work from there.

 

'God is eternal and unchanging' - proof would be required to me, so could result in 'this is false, as there is no evidence of this'.

 

So, I can see what you're trying to say, but I still stand where I was before - that everything in our lives can be dealt with via science and mathematics.

[jamesb]

For a subject that demands there be no evidence, clearly yes.

 

Your argument still seems to hinge around 'it's true because it doesn't require evidence - and in fact rejects evidence as being possible'.

 

There is an invisible space teapot in orbit between us and the sun. There is no way to detect it. This is essentially the same as your argument. The difference is that if I believe in the invisible space teapot it will have no impact, and no authority over my life - I am still free willed and not bound by a higher authority.

 

That would be to suspend judgement where you have the faculty to do so.

 

Why would you willingly give up your rational judgment of a statement? Doing so is not healthy in any situation.

 

I don't hold a conflicting perspective. I can use both methods to consider a problem, where you limit yourself to only one.

 

No, you can't use both methods, as mine and yours are mutually exclusive. My method relies on evidence, analysis and preferably proof (where available, although evidence and judgment are fine in the short term for less important matters). Your method relies on faith. If you claim that you can use my method, which demands evidence, then you are making a false claim as you have already demonstrated your willingness to believe in something with no evidence.

 

I was responding to specific questioning.

 

Whether you were or not is irrelevant. You stated that your religion is more developed, more coherent. You even suggest it is more logically consistent than a rational worldview, despite it's fundamental basis requiring an absence of proof.

 

Yet unrefuted.

 

And here you are again, claiming that your religion is 'better'. The statement didn't really need to be refuted as it was somewhat laughable to begin with.

 

To draw that conclusion requires a confused view of the components involved, as you've demonstrated. So I'm not surprised that you've concluded it. This is where you chase your tail for quite some time. I suggest we leave it here. Or come where I can get at you on atheistforums.org

 

No. You've demonstrated quite effectively that you have confused beliefs in conflicting theories. You also do not understand rationalism, believe your worldview to be better than anyone else's, and demand that there be no proof for your view. I do not have a confused view of the components involved I'm afraid. I am going in circles, simply because your argument purely consists of the same statements repeated over and over, ignoring any suggestions that you should consider evidence or a rational, scientific approach.

 

There really is no point arguing with you. You're a believer. What you believe in is pretty much irrelevant, as I have had similar conversations with people of many religions. So far you have said nothing new or interesting, and I very much doubt you're going to having seen your arguments to date.

[LiamH]

Im a Pastafarian

[jamesb]

But that's ridiculous! Are you seriously expecting me to believe in something for which there is no evidence? Moreover, the entire concept of this invisible entity is one that has been recently man-made. Pull the other one.

 

How dare you question the teapot?

 

Long has it watched over us, and in ritual ceremony do we partake of tea once a day, on special occasions eating it's sacred scones with jam and clotted cream. Woe betide any who place the jam upon the scone before the cream, for they shall be scalded by his steamy wrath!

[jamesb]

Fair enough. Tell me more about this ritual - I could get into that. I presume there's an afterlife with this package?

 

Yes. The eternal teatime of the soul. Where the faithful are rewarded with scones and Earl Grey, and the blasphemers are cursed to decaff Tetley with those strange dry biscuits which crumble the moment you dunk them.

[MkII]

@ Localzuk :

You didn't take those examples far enough. You can gather statistical information but how does that relate to the facts? Your conclusions could be completely wrong for a miriad of reasons. Lots of things are untestable using the scientific method, and need different reasoning to reach conclusions.

[MkII]

Your argument still seems to hinge around 'it's true because it doesn't require evidence - and in fact rejects evidence as being possible'.

My argument in defence of the dismissal of something on the grounds of inapplicable method.

 

if you ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are commiting the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles.

 

There is an invisible space teapot in orbit between us and the sun. There is no way to detect it. This is essentially the same as your argument. The difference is that if I believe in the invisible space teapot it will have no impact, and no authority over my life - I am still free willed and not bound by a higher authority.

You conveniently fail to recognise the rationalisation for faith, ergo you raise to equal importance a ludicrous substitute. The only reason to consider faith is because of the prior rationalisation.

 

Why would you willingly give up your rational judgment of a statement? Doing so is not healthy in any situation.

You misunderstood. It's you who suspends your capacity to consider a problem by limiting your considerations to empirical evidence. This is clearly demonstrable.

 

No, you can't use both methods, as mine and yours are mutually exclusive. My method relies on evidence, analysis and preferably proof (where available, although evidence and judgment are fine in the short term for less important matters). Your method relies on faith. If you claim that you can use my method, which demands evidence, then you are making a false claim as you have already demonstrated your willingness to believe in something with no evidence.

I'm sorry I said that wrong. I meant I can use either method independently, where you limit yourself to a single method for all problems (which is a lie, because you're simply denying the fact that you do it).

 

Whether you were or not is irrelevant. You stated that your religion is more developed, more coherent. You even suggest it is more logically consistent than a rational worldview, despite it's fundamental basis requiring an absence of proof.

And I also qualified that every time I said it by saying you yourself have to believe your own ideas to hold them. You are being disingenuous in your efforts to dismiss my opinion.

 

Do you believe what you think is the most correct summation of your understanding of the world around you to the best of your abilities? Or do you believe what someone else tells you without thinking about it? If the answer is the former, then you're exactly as guilty as me of holding an opinion. It seems you'll need to chastise yourself.

 

And here you are again, claiming that your religion is 'better'. The statement didn't really need to be refuted as it was somewhat laughable to begin with.

So my belief is laughable? Yet you fail to make a point stand as to how and why. Is it me that is dismissing other peoples opinions or you??

 

No. You've demonstrated quite effectively that you have confused beliefs in conflicting theories. You also do not understand rationalism, believe your worldview to be better than anyone else's, and demand that there be no proof for your view. I do not have a confused view of the components involved I'm afraid. I am going in circles, simply because your argument purely consists of the same statements repeated over and over, ignoring any suggestions that you should consider evidence or a rational, scientific approach.

Your opinion is biographical and doesn't address my world view, which you fail to successfully challenge. You also fail to defend against the fallacies you commit in dismissing my world view. I repeat my statements purely because you fail to acknowledge them by reconstructing them inconsistently.

 

There really is no point arguing with you. You're a believer. What you believe in is pretty much irrelevant, as I have had similar conversations with people of many religions. So far you have said nothing new or interesting, and I very much doubt you're going to having seen your arguments to date.

If you managed to challenged my refutation then we'd have a discussion. As you fail to do so, then I have nothing to work with, and your proposition is lost.

 

Thankyou for your participation.

[localzuk]

@ Localzuk :

You didn't take those examples far enough. You can gather statistical information but how does that relate to the facts? Your conclusions could be completely wrong for a miriad of reasons. Lots of things are untestable using the scientific method, and need different reasoning to reach conclusions.

 

But that's the thing - science isn't just an ending for something - its an ongoing process. Who says any question must have an answer now? We never used to be able to give an answer to questions such as 'what is the surface of the moon made from?' - we didn't have the technologies to answer them. What's to say that in 100, 200, or even 1000 years all those questions would have easy answers via technological improvements?

 

Your response seems to indicate that things that we can't give a clean cut answer to, right here and right now, are unanswerable unless we start including theological arguments. My answer to that is simply 'wait'.

 

Also, you have not given any responses to the 'invisible floating teapot' argument - no matter how silly it sounds, it is a legitimate argument.

[PiqueABoo]

Way I see it with a bit of perspective science often seems indistinguishable from religion: there are large doses of faith in both .. and entertainingly one of the bits that still bugs me in that regard, Big bang theory (so who left that [primeval atom|singularity|whatever] lying around in the first place then?), was first proposed by a Catholic priest.

[jamesb]

My argument in defence of the dismissal of something on the grounds of inapplicable method.

 

But you present no alternative method other than unthinking faith. Thereby dismissing everything else, whether or not any evidence is provided alongside.

 

if you ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are commiting the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles.

 

As you've said, your deity is dependent purely on faith and the mere fact that you believe is enough for you - regardless of any evidence either way. You then suggest that my desire for evidence somehow makes me short-sighted and gullible.

 

You conveniently fail to recognise the rationalisation for faith, ergo you raise to equal importance a ludicrous substitute. The only reason to consider faith is because of the prior rationalisation.

 

You have presented no rationalisation for faith whatsoever, simply repeated that you believe, therefore it's true. Not much of a rationalisation.

 

You misunderstood. It's you who suspends your capacity to consider a problem by limiting your considerations to empirical evidence. This is clearly demonstrable.

 

So because I consider any problem from the basis of evidence, I'm suspending my capacity to consider it? Did you think that through?

 

I'm sorry I said that wrong. I meant I can use either method independently, where you limit yourself to a single method for all problems (which is a lie, because you're simply denying the fact that you do it).

 

Which doesn't prevent the methods from being mutually exclusive. One relies on evidence, the other relies on a lack of evidence, claiming that you can use both independently is foolish - either one is valid, or the other is. Trying to claim you can consider both of them to be valid means that you fail to understand the implications of either.

 

And I also qualified that every time I said it by saying you yourself have to believe your own ideas to hold them. You are being disingenuous in your efforts to dismiss my opinion.

 

Granted - I will admit that I believe the evidence of my own eyes and experiences. I also will look at the available evidence on either side of a question and make my own decision. If there is no evidence for one argument of two, then I will discount it in favour of the side which has evidence backing it.

 

Do you believe what you think is the most correct summation of your understanding of the world around you to the best of your abilities? Or do you believe what someone else tells you without thinking about it? If the answer is the former, then you're exactly as guilty as me of holding an opinion. It seems you'll need to chastise yourself.

 

I follow the best summation of my experience of the world around me - and will revise that according to any new evidence which comes to light. I will not believe something simply because I am told it, which is one of the fundamentals of organised religion.

 

So my belief is laughable? Yet you fail to make a point stand as to how and why. Is it me that is dismissing other peoples opinions or you??

 

No. Your claims that your belief is somehow more valid, more developed or in any way better than any other belief is laughable. Will you please try and actually read what I'm saying?

 

Your opinion is biographical and doesn't address my world view, which you fail to successfully challenge. You also fail to defend against the fallacies you commit in dismissing my world view. I repeat my statements purely because you fail to acknowledge them by reconstructing them inconsistently.

 

There is no need to challenge your world view, as self-admittedly you have no evidence whatsoever for them, and fundamentally cannot present or find evidence for your basic view.

 

f you managed to challenged my refutation then we'd have a discussion. As you fail to do so, then I have nothing to work with, and your proposition is lost.

 

All I've seen so far is you claiming that evidence is irrelevant, because you believe otherwise. Not much of a refutation there. A better one might be to present some sort of evidence, rather than just stating that your view is more valid because you have no evidence. Oh, wait, your view relies on a lack of evidence. Never mind then.