Alan Roebuck and the nature of evidence

I am pleased to see that Alan Roebuck has returned to defend his position in the comments on my post of a few days ago, and seems quite eager to continue the discussion regarding the evidence. Apparently, he is disappointed that I gave his comment only a short reply, so I shall return to it for a more detailed examination.

Since the question of God’s existence has been debated since the beginning of time and has been discussed at length by all the great philosophers (as well as the not-so-great), and since entire libraries have been written to argue for God’s existence, we must ask “What do they mean by ‘No evidence’?”

I can’t speak for the atheists, since I am a theist myself (see the Patron Goddess link above). But I am both a skeptic and an ex-Christian, so I can at least address the question of what the phrase “no evidence” means. It means “no evidence.” Meaning, however, depends on context, and when skeptics say there is “no evidence” of God, we are speaking about evidence in the context of evidence that is (a) objective, (b) reliable, and (c) verifiable.

Read the rest of this entry »