First of all, in an intellectual debate, you don't go around telling someone that they're cornered. That ought to raise all sorts of red flags as to your logic, but in fact I'm perfectly happy to accept both of those propositions.
I would quite agree that there's a chance worth considering that I'm the center of a government conspiracy. (It's got a name.) I don't have any idea how that chance actually ranks in my mind, and any figure I did give would be a Potemkin (a complete guess). But it's entirely possible.
the impossibility of counterevidence isn't actually a good argument in favor of something The impossibility (according to some) of counterevidence against atheism (i.e. evidence for God) does not provide any evidence whatsoever in favor of atheism. Even though I keep being told that absence of evidence is evidence of absence implies absence of evidence. The impossibility of counterevidence against God (evidence for atheism) does not mean that God exists. Granted. I've never tried to use that argument, even if some theists do.
However, the fact that it isn't an argument in favor of religion surely doesn't mean that it's an argument in favor of atheism. Jeez.
And thank you for admitting that there is at least a tiny bit of evidence for religion. It would be really silly not to.
First of all, in an intellectual debate, you don't go around telling someone that they're cornered.
No, my understanding is that it's a fairly typical tactic.
I would quite agree that there's a chance worth considering that I'm the center of a government conspiracy. (It's got a name.) I don't have any idea how that chance actually ranks in my mind, and any figure I did give would be a Potemkin (a complete guess). But it's entirely possible.
Yes, I was indeed thinking of the Truman Show Delusion. My point, though, is that it shouldn't be any less credib... (read more)
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.