But for the issue of God, it's not the lack of evidence that invalidates the concept. It's that God cannot be defined. Without a definition, there's nothing to even look for. There's no concept for which one could even try to find evidence. To find evidence for something, the 'thing' must first be defined.
The proof of burden for definition lies on the one attempting to do so. Language is a particular difficulty here. Even though "God" is a broadly-used word, the common usage is that there is a guy upstairs, made in man's own image, but with awesome super powers. A much more precise language is needed.
It's like when you say "world," it's likely that most people have common images of what that is- the microcosm of the little town they live in, or a picture of the whole planet with everyone in it, and so on. When I use the term "world," in the context of these kinds of discussions, it means something more inclusive in terms of cosmology.
The experience of "God" is pluralistic, it is unique to the individual, with some commonalities appearing that can be discussed.
The real issue is as I said before- logic is equally ineffective whether it argues for or against religion. You can either accept that you have failed in your mission to persuade someone and look to the reasons, or dismiss any and all that you have attempted to persuade as unevolved independent thinkers, "mystics" (in the derogatory sense that O'ism uses it), "evaders," and so on.
You cannot convince me that there is no "God" because of the depth of my individual religious experience- logic cannot unpry it. Your evaluation of what that means about me makes no matter. The purpose of what I wrote, of course, was different.
(Edited by Rich Engle on 6/13, 11:50am)
(Edited by Rich Engle on 6/13, 11:53am)