I'm not exactly clear what evidence for the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being your peer-reviewed study provides.

No, you're perfectly clear on it, you simply choose to lie. If you had an equivalent breakdown of eyewitness reports of a crime, with very high correlation between them and correspondence between the theory of what transpired, you would accept it as evidence without question. I understand you had the foresight to stack the deck that the evidence must specifically require speaking to additional supposed attributes of your conceptualization, but in fact, that is wholly unrequired to serve as evidence of the question at hand. Really, you probably should have added "who has a beard" at the end, you'd pre-exclude for yourself more even earlier, with your odd conceptualization that anyone thinks that's the relevant question rather than "is there a God or an afterlife of the manner claimed by that"?

I do not subscribe to a belief system that has supernatural components. I won't shy away from expressing my opinion.

Fair enough. Feel free to do so. I'll wait, and Natural Selection will take care of you for me. No need to argue.

To be fair, theories expounding the existence (or non-existence) of Yahweh or Hashem or Shiva or Ahura Mazda aren't falsifiable, so science cannot directly address such questions.

Sure. So, one takes alternate forms of analysis, such as internal consistency of the defining writings of the worldview, successful predictions of future events, references from external secular sources, and personal spiritual experiences by which to narrow the field of plausibility. It is not by happenstance a very few have survived, and the rest long-dismissed. It's because they are -better-. They are more plausible, and that in no way excludes a particular one from being true. I'm sure, following standard argument here, you are very happy to share with us the superiority of your evaluation that they are all equivalent over millions of people who have concluded they are not. That stance, however, won't be rational. It does, however, fit harmoniously in its irrationality with your assertion that because you've been given one set of supporting information, that is therefore the only support that exists. An endless supply of personal accounts and arguments based on philosophical or scientific implausibility is a Google search away. And no, that you don't accept them a-priori, or they don't constitute "proof" for you and thus put you in a situation of immediate, forced conversion, in no way alters the fact they are evidence.

At the same time, any genuine scientific evidence would be welcome. What's that? Nothing? I'm shocked! Truly shocked!

You were given genuine, peer-reviewed scientific evidence. You'll need to do your next step here and construct he necessary formulation of the scope of "science" needed to be sure to exclude a peer-reviewed study, authored by multiple PhD's, published by probably the leading medical journal of Europe. Go ahead, I have time. Just don't take too long, because the standard equivocations and dances around this shouldn't take long with Google available.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

It is your claim that is extraordinary. The majority of the planet is theist. That's what "ordinary" means. Your erroneous rendering of what "extraordinary" means is entirely personal, subjective, and spurious. I don't find it "extraordinary" at all. For me, based on my experiences, it is simply fact.

All I asked was for a single, verifiable piece of evidence. I haven't seen one yet.

Yes, you have. You have dozens of them from this study alone. Unless you want to assert the eyewitnesses were lying, or the scientific methodology incorrect. Note up-front that the peer review process has already addressed this, so do consider it even if you feel yourself qualified to override that by fiat in this case as you do for the historical and present judgment of millions of other humans. But do elaborate on the source of your intrinsic superiority on these questions.

You can keep trying if you like, but unless you can produce scientific evidence of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who created the cosmos, I'm not buying what you're selling.

Since you act a hundred times a day on views that have exactly this same epistemological status, I'll leave you to figuring out how to not feel like a hypocrite when you do so. So... vote lately? For whom? Enjoying that music you think is "good"? I trust your proof of the correctness of your choices is forthcoming.

I suggest you cut your losses with me and move on to potentially greener pastures, friend. Have a great day!

Well, like it was said, the fields are ripe for harvest. It's okay that you don't understand this. Have a great day yourself, I do feel for your self-imposed limitation on how many you'll have.

I do not see how this has anything to do with there being a God, however.

Perhaps if you chose to view the content more pertinently for what it is, quantified eyewitness accounts of the predictions of religion, you'd lessen the self-generated mental vagueness there to help you help yourself evade clear and obvious conclusions.

Also claiming that asking for evidence is "intellectually dishonest" is bizarre.

If only that had anything to do with what I said. Asking for evidence is fine, and was provided. Asking for "evidence proving" is a meaningless mashing of words and a generally-impossible request (and probably intentionally so). Show me any instance of "evidence proving" something, for any topic.

One of them is provable and the other is philosophical bullshit.

Aww... that would be just awesomely great and hurtful if it wasn't a stupid Bare Assertion fallacy. As well as showing general incompetence in understanding science at all.

So... same question then. Are you wanting evidence, or proof? Bear in mind that giving you proof would be essentially forced conversion. You then have no choice about the issue--it's proven, period. Comply or go to an asylum for denying proven facts.

Some reasons this may intentionally not be commonly available might come to mind.

Still, that's not the question at hand. Do you want evidence, or proof, because they are two different things, and what would your response to each be? I propose you want neither, and the question is intended to guarantee you get what you want by demanding something called "evidence proving" that like "a shred of proof" is something that doesn't, and can't, exist anywhere, for any topic, but is a meaningless linguistic construction.

As for me, I asked for evidence, got it, and reacted accordingly.

Here you go.

Oh, and here.

And this.

Add Aristotle and Plato to your bookmarks too, for extra humor material. Old = wrong, right?

How long do I have to wait exactly until I know a particular idea has passed it's truth spoilage date? That would be handy to know.

There's numerous arguments around biological complexity and IC that provide evidence. And whether the universe per se is evidence or not is a question of interpretation. As Einstein said, you either consider everything a miracle, or nothing a miracle. Same basic thing. We could revisit all the general arguments around IC here, but nothing will change that from being evidence, neither political insults or goalpost-shifting that it isn't "proof". I neither claimed it was, nor that my link would have anything to do with directed evolution. Bother to read the thread and what I was replying to, and you can't miss it.

The link to the claims of religion are clear and obvious. The religion predicts X. X occurs, quantifiably, precisely when it says it will. The notion that there is that high of a correlation by happenstance among all the random hallucinations possible caused by brain failure is highly unlikely, and clearly a wildly-biased interpretation of the facts.

And no, you have not the slightest understanding of my fellow theist Occam or his "Razor". It never includes or excludes anything as being a valid interpretation of empirical, it just specifies what has the most practical conceptual economy -all else being equal-.

I'd be more negative toward your near-universal ignorance of science and philosophy, but it's hard to be too critical since you're clearly just a marginally capable Dawkins parrot. So, peace.

Sorry, you're both good little Dawkins parrots, but yes, it is in fact -epistemologically impossible- to say that you know somebody else is making a conclusion based on no evidence.

This is actually, -provably- irrational, per the whole history of Western Philosophy and all of science.

It is possible one has evidence of something. It is possible that one does not have evidence of something. It is -impossible-, -always-, to know that nobody has said evidence. No matter the subject. No matter the situation. Always. It is possible for you to know what happened on the corner of Fifth and Main at 2 PM last weekend. It is -not- possible for you to know nobody knows.

While, in fact, it is by definition (according to the actual authorities on the subject and the DSM) factually wrong to claim a belief that the majority of a person's culture adheres to can be a "delusional" belief, if either is a delusion, it is your stance. Not arguably. -Provably-. How do you propose to know whether anyone does, or does not, have evidence of any given thing, in any given case?

Okay, well then most of these claims you may wish to revise based on the peer-reviewed evidence I have provided you, particularly the allusion (Hint? Equivocation? Vague aspersion? I'm not sure what your intent was) that there's something there contradicting the empirical evidence regarding existence we have.

Out of curiosity, how, for the purposes of discussion and meeting your request, would you define these terms, specifically:

"Evidence"

"Proof"

"Evidence proving"

For example, believing my conclusions are based on no evidence, you having no possible evidence for this or way of reviewing my brain or life to know this, as a reflection of your psychic powers?

There's peer-reviewed evidence linked in this very thread. If your psychic powers fail you in this case, some clicking should get you there. I'm not relinking it here.

You'll have to address the intellectual dishonesty of your own insistence on "evidence proving" first. They aren't remotely equivalent, in theology or science, and you are asking for it specifically because you're confident your self-contradictory request can be successfully goalpost-shifted to "still not proof I'm willing to accept" to whatever arbitrary degree you wish.

But here's something peer-reviewed for you.

How about this instead.

I'll do what I please.
Nothing about this thread is off-topic.
You aren't the arbiter of what Slashdot is.
I understand your admission of incompetence and failure of punting and saying "google how you're wrong".

Incompetent coward.

Yes.

So now it's time for you to consider the overall veracity and value of the wider presentation around that, and harmoniousness with overall existence as you perceive it to be.

I recommend bringing a towel.

There is not a single accurate thing in this post.

I understand by your sole reliance on silly negative characterization (yes, when you want to use the term "sky daddy" instead of the standard terminology, relying on us to consider that both the same, and not the same, simultaneously, you show clearly your ingrained intellectual dishonesty) that you have not the slightest idea of how to construct an actual meaningful argument. Still, when, in cases like you, one does not, cowardly "overrated" modding is simply soft censorship.

No, it was called a Senior Airman. Very few Sr.Amn went to NCO school and took the rank of buck sgt. before just going for staff, so the majority of E4s were Airman tier, not NCO tier. Sr. Amn and Buck paid the same, both being E4, with the only difference being NCO school and tier, plus some advantages (priority) if you wanted to separate rats and quarters and were single. Oh, and the star on your sleeve was silver instead of blue, although that isn't a perk, just an indication you were an NCO.

Note that most of the "exceptional" airmen back then would simply go below the zone (make E5/Staff Sgt. in less than 4 years) rather than seek buck sgt. Bucks were fairly rare for a variety of reasons, including the above.

Yes, I was in the Air Force. So was most of my family.

You'll need to do better than that Ad Hominem. It wasn't even a clever one.