strawmen of god

[lightgigantic]

No, you can't.

feel free to indicate what point of vehicle construction you feel relies on a tentative argument

Exactly. So the error is familiar to you, and you can correct it in your handling of cargo cult religion.

I wasn't aware that ship manufacturers are facing the same challenges as scientists researching in the field of abiogenesis

Nope.

sure you are.
Otherwise you would have no means to distinguish between a human projection of the natural world, as opposed to some other lesser world

No.

See how easy it is to answer a question? Your turn.

unfortunately that doesn't explain why religion gets your bile secretions moving

 

[lightgigantic]

Lol, that's inconsequential unless you intend to keep using the same fallacy all year long - which certainly seems to be the case. In fact, you don't even address the issue, you just keep repeating the same fallacy under some bizarre delusion that it's going to become less of a fallacy the more you say it.

Once more for the sake of the inept: It is inconsequential whether nobody bothers studying leprechauns or mentioning leprechauns or whether everyone does. It says nothing of their existence or non-existence. Whether nobody believes it or everyone believes it is of no consequence to its truth or lack thereof. For the final time: Kindly stop making a fallacious argumuent.

er... if nobody says anything about leprechauns, who is representing them? (aside from atheists playing coy, of course). IOW what makes leprechauns such a tantalizing prospect to prop up the straw man is that they don't come with any elaborate philosophical issues and are bereft of any supporting issues of application. Due to these absences, regardless of whether leprechauns exist or not, it says nothing about the nature of god.

This, with respect, is meaningless waffle. Accept the offer - let's sit down and come to agreement of what consititutes 'evidence'. Doing research, (application), is not 'evidence', it is doing work to gather evidence. That I'm even having to address this shows some serious problems with your level of understanding or English comprehension.

If you're after a good topic for waffle, feel free to explain how one can determine an issue of evidence while bypassing the issue of application.

With all due respect but I get the distinct impression that you've got about 5 or 6 responses stored in notepad that you just paste without even really understanding what it is you're pasting. Nobody said one does not apply himself, one does not research. That is in fact the very basis of evidence gathering. What I asked you and I to sit down and discuss - although it seemingly got lost in translation - was for us to come to an agreement on what exactly constitutes 'evidence'. Kindly pay attention and address what has been requested. Many thanks.

Standard arguments require standard rebuttals.

You are making the claim that there is no evidence.
I am making the point that you haven't addressed the issue of application that support it.
If you want to discuss evidence divorced from such matters, you have a definition that doesn't fit any pedagogical model under the sun.

:shrug:

My point again. You seemingly just paste the same old garb without knowing or caring whether it's even relevant to what is being said and asked. I didn't suggest that 'evidence' just pops out of the blue without any work ever being done. Why are you continuing with irrelevant blather? I am becoming more convinced that my earlier statement is factual.

Now, kindly stop. Close your copy/paste notepad and pay attention to what is being said. Use a translator if you need to:

Let us sit down together here and now and come to an agreement on what exactly consitutes 'evidence'.

Kindly do not respond until you're awake and understand what has been said. Many thanks.

evidence is an experience of something (or perhaps even just an experience in and of its self) that supports an assertion. Generally, at least for the sake of vouching conclusions in the public sphere, it is also required to be repeatable. This is why the issue of application is so sensitive to the case.

IOW the question of evidence is surrounded by issues of what/how (and in worst case scenarios,if ) one can know

 

[lightgigantic]

Sorry LG, you consult your senses long before any philosophy tells you anything. Empiricism is just and attempt to understand the implications.

Actually there are a host of schools, apart from empiricism (perhaps the most prominent being rationalism) , that attempt to understand the implications. Empiricism would have us take the senses at face value. Ironically, this is all thoroughly in the arena of philosophy, which you feel inclined to level as mindless chatter that interferes with the real business of working with the senses.

I'm sorry you don't know who your parents are LG. That's too bad.

I don't see how accusing me of being afflicted by the same reduced world outlook as yourself explains which tactile sense you brought to bear on the question of your parents.

So little precision. The topic of deities has a lot of literature, but so does the topic of Vorlons. Anyone can write literature on any fictional topic they care to - doesn't mean squat.

well then it also has some texts that are considered more seminal than others

Don't you wish it were that simple. But you wouldn't need to weasel so hard if it was.

No major efforts required to uncover elements of universal homogeneity in any theism headed in the general direction out of polytheism

OK, Qerg is a nonexistence god with full access to not only all potencies, but the source of all potencies. Qerg did away with all previous, current and future deities and then did away with itself.

Gee, maybe descriptions in and of themselves are worthless.

particularly if they are philosophically unsound and dislocated from any surrounding discourse.

Thor isn't.

Never heard of Odin and Jord I take it?

Plato was drunk at the time and just trying to impress his new boyfriend.

Sorry LG, words in and of themselves are empty. You can't just talk things into existence.

No doubt your words illustrate this quite frequently

 

[wynn]

Every single individual on the planet could believe, contest and write that the planet is flat as a pancake. It is utterly inconsequential to the truth of the matter.

Sure. But if every single individual on the planet could believe, contest and write that the planet is flat as a pancake, then obviously there would be nobody left to wonder whether perhaps the planet isn't flat - and the shape of the planet would never have become an issue to begin with.

Arguing that something has no validity/isn't true because it has no followers or people that write about it is a fallacy. Nothing whatsoever changes that fact.

How can you empirically prove that it is indeed a fallacy to argue that "something has no validity/isn't true because it has no followers or people that write about it"?

 

[wynn]

The topic of deities has a lot of literature, but so does the topic of Vorlons. Anyone can write literature on any fictional topic they care to - doesn't mean squat.

Anyone can write literature on any fictional topic they care to - but that doesn't mean squat?

Not at all. Just look at the revenues and influence of films like Star Wars or Harry Potter, or whole libraries of fiction books etc.:
enormous amounts of money, work, time, jobs, social influence, environmental impact.

How does all that not mean something?

Every day, millions of people devote some of their time and money to such media products for which they themselves believe are fictional.
They are delibrately devoting themselves to things which they believe are fictional.

Strange, that these same people criticize religion on account that it is "fictional".

 

[scifes]

snake lord, i'm sorry, but you're either the most dishonest or the most innocent fallacy user i've ever met,
putting the fact that you didn't reply to post #69 aside;

you, my dear sir, are arguing that god doesn't exist, and so it is fine to compare him to leprechauns, and i say, take it somewhere else please.

Every single individual on the planet could believe, contest and write that the planet is flat as a pancake. It is utterly inconsequential to the truth of the matter. Arguing that something has no validity/isn't true because it has no followers or people that write about it is a fallacy. Nothing whatsoever changes that fact.

the truth of the matter my dear sir is inconsequential to it being a strawman argument, the number of people believing in god and not in leprechauns make a difference big enough for them not to be compared to each other, that number doesn't make god exist(which is a weak argument no one here is making, actually introduced to the thread by you), but it still is a huge difference, you may need to review your philosophy 101 book, and re-read that the amount of people believing in a thing doesn't mean it's true, but doesn't say it doesn't greatly affect the possibility of it being true. so as we can see, the number of people greatly affects the equation, that effect is nonexistent in leprechauns, making the equation of leprechauns easier to solve than the god equation, MAKING IT A BLOODY STRAWMAN.

you have an obsession with a god who doesn't exist? open a new thread, have some shared traits between god and leprechauns which make comparing them to each other not a straw man other than what i mentioned in #69? please share them.

if we reached the conclusion that the OP is true, i might consider teaching you a thing or two in philosophy concerning your last post.

 

[SnakeLord]

er... if nobody says anything about leprechauns, who is representing them?

Er... Whether they're being "represented" [?] or not says nothing regarding their existence or non-existence.

Due to these absences, regardless of whether leprechauns exist or not, it says nothing about the nature of god.

I have already pointed out that the purpose of the analogy is not to make a comparison between natures of claimed entities.

feel free to explain how one can determine an issue of evidence while bypassing the issue of application.

Why, this isn't relevant to us discussing what consitutes as 'evidence'. Once again, although you seemingly don't bother reading posts before responding from your notepad, is that nobody has argued that one does not do research and work in order to gather evidence.

Stop with the strawman.

You are making the claim that there is no evidence.

Actually I am asking that you and I sit down and come to an agreement of what exactly constitutes evidence.

I am making the point that you haven't addressed the issue of application that support it.
If you want to discuss evidence divorced from such matters

Seemingly you do not read posts before responding from your notepad. I have addressed it several times now and am more than happy to agree that doing research and work, (evidence gathering), is important - no, essential - in gathering evidence. Nobody wants to discuss evidence divorced from anything, stop with the strawman.

evidence is an experience of something (or perhaps even just an experience in and of its self) that supports an assertion.

Few things: (You'll need to clarify exactly what you mean by having 'an experience of something').

1. How many people need to have this 'experience'?
2. Must this 'experience' be reproducable on demand?
3. Must anyone else share this 'experience' when you have it?
4. How do you determine that your brain interpreted the 'experience' accurately, or that the 'experience' was anything actually outside of your brain?

 

[SnakeLord]

putting the fact that you didn't reply to post #69 aside

With respect but unlike every post I have responded to, it didn't have one of my quotes pasted nor did it address me by name. That's typically how I know what exactly I am supposed to respond to, (hence why I am now responding to this post as well).

Now I know you'd like me to, I'll address it, (at the end of this post).

you, my dear sir, are arguing that god doesn't exist

I'm doing no such thing.

I'll go through the rest of your post regardless to this opening blunder.

the truth of the matter my dear sir is inconsequential to it being a strawman argument, the number of people believing in god and not in leprechauns make a difference big enough for them not to be compared to each other

If the comparison were about how many people believed in them then yes. As explained - but apparently missed, it isn't.

so as we can see, the number of people greatly affects the equation

Unfortunately for you it doesn't.

you have an obsession with a god who doesn't exist?

This is a strawman. Even if I answered yes, which I wouldn't, it's of no relevance to anything.

Well, that was a painful waste of effort.

----

Anyway, as promised, I'll now address 69:

what god and the bunch have in common

There was no need to write the "what god and the bunch don't have in common" because, as explained, that's not the reason the comparison is made - hence duh, they won't necessarily have those aspects in common.

so, what they have in common vs what they don't, which is more important depending on how the comparison is used in an argument?

"More important"? What do you mean exactly? If you want my statement, it's that the second is "more important" because it engages issues such as evidence for existence as opposed to how many people believe in it. "More important" is truth and as a consequence - evidence for it being true. Your second list is where the comparisons lie and, interestingly, you yourself state that they're not strawmen. Lol, you funny.

Now, you say: "..if no evidence was offered for neither". which is the case. Yes, arguments have been put forth for both. Personal testimony has been put forth for both. These are not examples of "evidence".

In the case of gods you have certain arguments such as: Kalam, ontological, teleological, moral - none of which are "evidence" but assumptions founded on ignorance or uninformed guesswork. Take for instance the moral argument:

'objective morality exists' is one of the premises which is, I hate to say it, a completely unfounded statement. And then, even if objective morality did exist, you still don't get to the conclusion posited.

Or take Kalam that suggests that "everything that begins to exist has a cause". Again this is an unfounded assumption based upon observance within a universe and applying it beyond it. Let's ignore that science knows of things that begin to exist without a cause and just recognise that such argument is actually a fallacy of taking that which you observe as being the same for everything you can't observe.

Ontological on the other hand just makes a nonsensical statement with no backup whatsoever.

The teleological argument makes the same assumptions - assuming that by dint of us humans designing complex things, everything must also be designed by intelligence. The argument fails on every single angle and provides not one drop of 'evidence'.

So sir, where is your 'evidence'?

Can it be tested?
Can it be falsified?
Can it be reproduced?
Can it be studied?

No.. and you say you have 'evidence'? (....)

 

[scifes]

you open a can of worms with every post.

so as we can see, the number of people greatly affects the equation

Unfortunately for you it doesn't.

what are you, stoooopid? or being hypocritical and stubborn?
9 people say yes and 1 say no...it doesn't mean that yes is the true answer according to the ad populum fallacy...
but the possibility of truth between yes and no is the SAME??:bugeye:
the number of people sticking to a choice means NOTHING??:wtf:

The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answer A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A. In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness.

"reasonable" seems lost in this thread.

There was no need to write the "what god and the bunch don't have in common" because, as explained, that's not the reason the comparison is made - hence duh, they won't necessarily have those aspects in common.

"don't have in common"? did i say that?
i said DIFFER..if i mention SOME points in which they differ(or don't have in common) which are relevant and important to how they are used in an argument, i have shown they are not interchangeable in that argument.. unless a logical fallacy is taking place, having provided that, i think i have made my point.

the reason i mentioned what they do have in common, is because they have veeeeeary little in common, which i covered in three points, two of which are essentially one..do you have any other relative points they have in common? i think you do....;

"More important"? What do you mean exactly? If you want my statement, it's that the second is "more important" because it engages issues such as evidence for existence as opposed to how many people believe in it. "More important" is truth and as a consequence - evidence for it being true.

ah yes..evidence..

Now, you say: "..if no evidence was offered for neither". which is the case. Yes, arguments have been put forth for both. Personal testimony has been put forth for both. These are not examples of "evidence".

"which is the case"..........................................................?
"no evidence has been offered for neither"..............................................?
accepted-understood-aknowledged-comprehended.. yeah i get those... but none was OFFERED?
when i searched for "evidence of god in google,
i got 49,700,000 results..
first search result was more than a hundred books from amazon.com
no, sit down, i don't need to you to tell me if they're correct or not..
have they OFFERED evidence?
almost 50 million?
evidence for leprechauns, 177,000 result, tell me, are you good enough with math to tell us the ratio of one to the oother?
can you combine that with some reading skills and re-read the quoted part from wikipedia?
what is "reasnobale" my dear sir?
fuck reasonable, and back to math..
is 49,700,000 = 177,000?
still wanna defend your strawman?

In the case of gods you have certain arguments such as: Kalam, ontological, teleological, moral - none of which are "evidence" but assumptions founded on ignorance or uninformed guesswork. Take for instance the moral argument:

'objective morality exists' is one of the premises which is, I hate to say it, a completely unfounded statement. And then, even if objective morality did exist, you still don't get to the conclusion posited.

Or take Kalam that suggests that "everything that begins to exist has a cause". Again this is an unfounded assumption based upon observance within a universe and applying it beyond it. Let's ignore that science knows of things that begin to exist without a cause and just recognise that such argument is actually a fallacy of taking that which you observe as being the same for everything you can't observe.

Ontological on the other hand just makes a nonsensical statement with no backup whatsoever.

The teleological argument makes the same assumptions - assuming that by dint of us humans designing complex things, everything must also be designed by intelligence. The argument fails on every single angle and provides not one drop of 'evidence'.

that is why, my dear sir, i said "offered"..
because one person's evidence isn't accepted by another.
some say the evidence of the moon landing is fake..
with such people, to show the higher possibility of one choice to another, when their brains are smaller than to accept the full truth, but perhaps a smaller form of it as a probability, or at least a possibility, you measure "offered" evidence; when the war of evidence providing is lost, what else can you do?

So sir, where is your 'evidence'?

but you just said there is no evidence, only arguments, how can you ask for something you believe doesn't exist?

not to mention, it's off topic, re check the op please, or open a new thread.

Can it be tested?
Can it be falsified?
Can it be reproduced?
Can it be studied?

No.. and you say you have 'evidence'? (....)

congratulations, you have just cornered 50 million people.

 

[SnakeLord]

what are you, stoooopid? or being hypocritical and stubborn?

Kindly dispense with the ad homs, they do not aid anything.

but the possibility of truth between yes and no is the SAME??
the number of people sticking to a choice means NOTHING??

In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness

This does not apply to 'faiths', and issues beyond our level of knowledge, (i.e having no ability to observe, test or falsify claimed existence).

if i mention SOME points in which they differ(or don't have in common) which are relevant and important to how they are used in an argument

Which, once again, is not the basis on which the comparison is made - hence they are redundant.

have they OFFERED evidence?

Well let's look at one of your following statements:

evidence for leprechauns, 177,000 result, tell me, are you good enough with math to tell us the ratio of one to the oother?

Wow, so you are now saying that there actually is "evidence" for the existence of leprechauns. The differing amount of sites having "evidence" is inconsequential, your argument here states that there is evidence for their existence - which frankly makes me think the word 'evidence' is being seriously misused or misunderstood.

can you combine that with some reading skills and re-read the quoted part from wikipedia?

Calm down, attempt at insult does not suit you.

In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness

This does not apply to 'faiths', and issues beyond our level of knowledge, (i.e having no ability to observe, test or falsify claimed existence).

When you respond to this post, try to keep calm heh? It makes it all go smoother. If you would prefer a slagging match, open a new thread.

 

[earth]

This does not apply to 'faiths', and issues beyond our level of knowledge, (i.e having no ability to observe, test or falsify claimed existence).

We watch movies attempting to invent the perfect murder or crime.

Religion is perfect in a sense awakening the flimflam man in many allowing the perfect con to continue.

 

[iceaura]

no, sit down, i don't need to you to tell me if they're correct or not..
have they OFFERED evidence?
almost 50 million?

No.

evidence for leprechauns, 177,000 result, tell me, are you good enough with math to tell us the ratio of one to the oother?

About the same as the number of asserted gods compared with the kinds of leprechauns - might be skewed in the leprechauns favor, actually.

is 49,700,000 = 177,000?
still wanna defend your strawman?

Something like a 35/1 ratio. There are far more than 35 asserted gods out there, if you are going to count all those metaphorical beings that theists are fond of counting when claiming the universality of theism.

On that argument, leprechauns appear to be one of the more probable gods.

 

[scifes]

Wow, so you are now saying that there actually is "evidence" for the existence of leprechauns. The differing amount of sites having "evidence" is inconsequential, your argument here states that there is evidence for their existence - which frankly makes me think the word 'evidence' is being seriously misused or misunderstood.

and then you tell me to keep the ad homs down, do you know the difference between offered evidence and existent evidence?
do you not read what i type, or do you blatantly change it on purpose? does uppercase register special in any way to you? bold? underlined? italic? the combination of using them all?

we say evidence for god exists, you disagree..
they say evidence for leprechauns exist, we disagree..
do we deny that in both cases evidence was offered?
does the amount of evidence offered make no difference?
do you understand english?
have you ever heard of honesty?
have you ever tried agreeing with a point made by an opponent because he's right in that point?

Calm down, attempt at insult does not suit you.

maybe, but pardon me this one time, i'm stuck with the likes of you.

 

[scifes]

No.

yeah, i guess i should take your word for it.

About the same as the number of asserted gods compared with the kinds of leprechauns - might be skewed in the leprechauns favor, actually.
Something like a 35/1 ratio. There are far more than 35 asserted gods out there, if you are going to count all those metaphorical beings that theists are fond of counting when claiming the universality of theism.

such a strong attempt at running away from facts.
gods are gods, leprechauns are leprechauns.
49,700,000 is 49,700,700 and 177,000 is 177,000
god starting with a "g" and leprechauns starting with an "l" has nothing to do with it.

On that argument, leprechauns appear to be one of the more probable gods.

mmmm...
it seems 177,000 is bigger than 49,700,000.. i gotta be missing something here...

listen to me smarty, the probability of one certain god's existence compared to one certain kind of leprechauns' existence is a feeeeebly weeeeeeeeeeeak unintelligent argument, i advise you not to peruse it.

 

[SnakeLord]

and then you tell me to keep the ad homs down

I would advise you do some research on what 'ad homs' actually are.

do you know the difference between offered evidence and existent evidence?

No idea, do tell.

'Offered evidence' - is where you just make a claim or statement but it isn't actually evidence?

do you not read what i type [ad nauseum]...

Argument against the person. Of no worth to the discussion. I have addressed everything you have typed, (while, unfortunately, you have not addressed so much as one thing that I mentioned in my last post - not one) but if you have a specific issue please point it out and I shall try again.

we say evidence for god exists, you disagree..
they say evidence for leprechauns exist, we disagree..
do we deny that in both cases evidence was offered?

Yes, unless evidence was actually offered. The way to determine whether evidence has actually been offered is to have a good understanding as to what exactly constitutes 'evidence'. Unfortunately lg didn't seem to want to get into it but I'm happy to go through it with you. Let's come to an agreement.

does the amount of evidence offered make no difference?

If it is not evidence it's inconsequential how much of it is offered.

do you understand english?

Very well - indeed better than most. Thanks for asking.

have you ever heard of honesty?

Yes I have.

Apologies, I don't quite understand the relevance of these personal questions to the actual discussion at hand. If you'd care to clarify?

have you ever tried agreeing with a point made by an opponent because he's right in that point?

Certainly. What are you saying exactly?

maybe, but pardon me this one time, i'm stuck with the likes of you.

And, although I hate to descend to such level, it appears that the above quote is the overall sum of your debating skills.

Now, kindly apply a little less emotion to your post and instead try to focus on the matter at hand.

 

[iceaura]

Does the fact that your theistic beliefs are human contrivances and explications and models of natural phenomena reduce their value to you?
”
I am amazed by the certainty with which you speak about another person's beliefs.
This certainty of yours is either a rhetorical strategy, or you are nothing short of enlightened ...

You guys could always try answering the questions, and thereby clear up any possible confusions about your beliefs.

No.
”
yeah, i guess i should take your word for it.

Or counter by example - according to you, examples of offered evidence abound.

it seems 177,000 is bigger than 49,700,000.. i gotta be missing something here..

The argument. You are comparing one entity among thousands with the whole collection of thousands of entities, and after making that mistake you compound it by trying to argue existence from an irrelevant popularity not even well measured.

Leprechauns seem to be more popular internet subjects than the average of the planet's named deities. I would not draw any conclusion at all about their real existence from that, but then I'm not trying to make your very silly argument.

 

[scifes]

Leprechauns seem to be more popular internet subjects than the average of the planet's named deities. I would not draw any conclusion at all about their real existence from that, but then I'm not trying to make your very silly argument.

i don't care about the 3 billion surnames gods have, i care about their first name, "god"..stop trying to twist my argument with your sub cases, who said anything about the existence of a certain deity name? no one, but you didn't like the fact that more people believe in one god or another(which is what relative) and so interjected to divide that number of people among the different names assigned to gods to reduce that number. which is really nice:m:

drop it.

 

[scifes]

In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness

This does not apply to 'faiths', and issues beyond our level of knowledge, (i.e having no ability to observe, test or falsify claimed existence).

one:
who decides what is faith and what is not?
is faith the belief in something that as i said

can't be seen with the naked eye, heard directly by an ear, felt by a hand, smelled by a nose or tasted by a mouth.. or any other direct sensory method.

?
-may god's existence be labeled as a faith and not a fact (which it is for some people), why is it excluded there?

-also, can you please give me an example where an answer "can't be known"?

Which, once again, is not the basis on which the comparison is made - hence they are redundant.

don't know what you mean.

In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness

This does not apply to 'faiths', and issues beyond our level of knowledge, (i.e having no ability to observe, test or falsify claimed existence).

two:
in the last line, it says "falsify claimed existence", that can't be done, meaning that all claims of existence are faiths??(which if you analyze it correctly, is the case)

 

[scifes]

I would advise you do some research on what 'ad homs' actually are.

i thought they were simply personal attacks, found some interesting stuff upon looking it up, gracias.

No idea, do tell.

'Offered evidence' - is where you just make a claim or statement but it isn't actually evidence?

when one side offeres evidence
+
the other side accepts it
=
the two sides agree that the evidence exists.

can you see what would be missing for "offered evidence"?

Argument against the person. Of no worth to the discussion. I have addressed everything you have typed, (while, unfortunately, you have not addressed so much as one thing that I mentioned in my last post - not one) but if you have a specific issue please point it out and I shall try again.

well truth be told, if i address everything you type, we'll be discussing sports 3 or 4 pages later, we're debating alright, but not relating to the op..i'll expand in a new post.

Yes, unless evidence was actually offered. The way to determine whether evidence has actually been offered is to have a good understanding as to what exactly constitutes 'evidence'. Unfortunately lg didn't seem to want to get into it but I'm happy to go through it with you. Let's come to an agreement.

shoot, what is evidence?

but first, does such thing as evidence actually exists?

If it is not evidence it's inconsequential how much of it is offered.

oh man, then let me rephrase:
the amount of people who offer what they think is evidence for god are waaaaaay more than the people offering what they think is evidence for leprechauns.

the fact of the matter is snakelord, that the world and the majority of people don't give a rat's patooti about what you think is evidence or not, so i'm trying to liberate my argument from personal standarst, if you can convince each and everyone in the world with your definition of evidence and have them oblige to it(and don't be surprised if you meet someone along the way who is doing the same thing you are, but with a different definition of evidence), then i could say your definition of evidence matters, since that isn't the case, we can't change the numbers based on your understanding(or mine for all that matters)

 

[SnakeLord]

one:
who decides what is faith and what is not?
is faith the belief in something that as i said

Well, in this specific instance I'd be willing to just answer that the theists are doing good enough all by themselves determing that their own faith is faith - and of utmost importance. (For various reasons - namely, in the christian scheme of things at least - if one knows god exists then one doesn't really have free will anymore. Given that you know god exists and by extension that heaven/hell exists, you're going to worship it to ensure saving your own skin, hence why faith is such a vastly important factor).

The second part I don't understand, it doesn't make any sense as written. Kindly try again.

-may god's existence be labeled as a faith and not a fact (which it is for some people), why is it excluded there?

1. I am unsure who you're talking to. The quote pasted wasn't mine.

2. Unfortunately I don't get the question. The answer to the first part is yes - belief in gods is a matter of faith, not fact. I can't grasp what you're trying to ask from the brackets onwards.

-also, can you please give me an example where an answer "can't be known"?

Certainly. What I'm going to have for breakfast, (outside of perhaps myself and my wife - although even I don't know right now). If you had 56 billion web hits saying I was going to have corn flakes and 30 thousand saying I'm going to have toast, you can't claim any more likelihood of truth simply because of the numbers, (argumentum ad populum).

in the last line, it says "falsify claimed existence", that can't be done, meaning that all claims of existence are faiths??

Glad you asked. There are two types of claim: Singular existential and universal existential:

1. All swans are white
2. There is a black swan in Australia

You'll hopefully already notice the difference but if not I shall explain:

Claim (1) isn't verifiable, (you'd need to be omniscient), but is falsifiable, (just find one non-white swan).

Claim (2) on the other hand is verifiable, (show the Australian black swan), but isn't falsifiable, (if you see no black swan it could be because it just flew off down the road).

'god exists' is a (2) claim, (with the additional problem of probably not being verifiable either as theists would be the first to acknowledge that one cannot know if a god exists). However, it is a (2) claim on the basis that you can technically verify the existence of said god by presenting said god.

i thought they were simply personal attacks, found some interesting stuff upon looking it up, gracias.

Glad to have been of assistance. Hopefully now you wont make the same mistake again.

when one side offeres evidence

How was it determined that it was in fact 'evidence'? What do you mean by 'evidence' here?

the amount of people who offer what they think is evidence for god are waaaaaay more than the people offering what they think is evidence for leprechauns.

Which, unfortunately, (and as already explained), doesn't say anything to the truth or falsity of either.

that the world and the majority of people don't give a rat's patooti about what you think is evidence or not

Tragic as it is, you're probably right. Thing is though, it's not about what one thinks evidence is but what evidence actually is. If you find a cloverleaf and assert that it's "evidence" that leprechauns exist, you might "think" it is evidence but it isn't evidence - regardless to whether the majority of people give a rats patooti, (whatever that might be), or not.