Yes another errant claim with no supporting evidence. I’ve been debating atheists both online and offline for some forty years.
I don’t care, I’m not here to discuss me but atheism, if you want to discuss me you’ll be disappointed.
If you cannot respond to arguments without a need to know personal details of your opponent then right there we have a problem.
You ask " How is this not a fallacy but you wrote that!
On the contrary we use epistemologies to DEFINE what it means to “know” to define what constitutes knowledge.
You meant to write “is an epistemology” yes?
God can be inferred from observation. As soon as we discover that the thing we seek to explain cannot be the explanation for itself we can infer God. Since no material agency can have caused material to exist we must - if we are logical - infer something outside of naturalism else naturalism remains unexplained.
It is a totally natural line of reasoning and hardly new, these ideas were discussed in antiquity before Christ even.
Do I care about truth? Yes I’d say it has some importance.
What are you referring to here as “new” exactly? logic? inference? what could be possibly contentious here?
Who said anything about “running tests” not me. What I have said is what exactly is the atheist asking for when they ask to see evidence for God? All evidence is interpreted and we must therefore choose how to interpret evidence.
Some insist that anything material presented as being evidence for God, can always be explained as simply evidence for some as-yet unknown material process and that right there is the real circular reasoning.
“Please show me evidence for God but whatever you do show me I believe will have a natural explanation”.
Faced with that why would I bother showing such a person evidence? if they’ve already decided that whatever is shown to them cannot really ever be evidence then why ask for it at all?
Is this an admission then that you actually cannot distinguish evidence for God yourself? your asking me to do this for you?
I’m not the person asking for evidence, claiming there is none, no that is the atheist, that’s what they do, harp on and on and on about never seeing evidence yet knowing full well they’d reject whatever was shown to them anyway, I mean how can any self respecting intelligent person actually fall for this claptrap of a worldview.
There’s a rather obvious difference, we can define what evidence would support the claim the election was stolen, there are reasonable criteria like a judge finding reasonable grounds or evidence of fake ballots or video recordings of manipulation or evidence that computers were not secure and so on.
What criteria would you use to decide if X was evidence for God or not?