[Wow. You’re doing stream-of-consciousness commenting.
Amusingly, it almost reads as a dialogue.]
Heh. You’re being evasive again.
It’s like you’re commenting on your own post. Are you going to keep dancing around refusing to engage with anything?
You have misunderstood Sagan’s Dragon
No.
Your link supports my interpretation:
He says that there is no reason to believe when there is no evidence, as there is no difference between that which has no detectable effect and that which does not exist. And that you should therefore disbelieve:
“Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?
The dragon described in your link does not entail evidence, that’s the point of it.
He is in fact saying that “Absence of evidence for a proposition is evidence against that proposition even when the truth of the proposition doesn’t entail evidence
“Your ‘Ah’ exhibits facile thinking.”
Does it? That bastard. You tell it to up its game when you see it next, it’s letting the whole bloody side down.
“Theism is belief in one or more deities; ‘deities’ is an ontology of god-constructs ranging from highly abstract (panentheism) to highly personal (Yahweh).”
Yes. That is a factual statement. What’s the relevance?
It’s a good start – it’s always useful to define terms before using them, to prevent semantic misunderstandings. But I asked you to substantiate “theism is implausible per se” and random related facts don’t do that.
“It depends what you mean by supernatural. If you mean “magic” then yes not all Gods are “magic”.
Heh. You’re being evasive again.
Evading what exactly? I answered the question, I even provided for different uses of terminology in case you meant one and I thought you meant the other. If you are unsure of how I’m using the terminology then ask, don’t avoid addressing the point by accusing me of being evasive.
