Should god-claims be taken seriously?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've already answered this. a dragon is a material being, and as such we would expect to find material evidence. But there is none. This is not the case with God. You cannot compare God and dragons.

IMO, distinctions like "material/immaterial" and "natural/supernatural" are based on what evidence is available, not on anything about the fundamental characteristics of "immaterial" things.

Tell me if my assumption is correct:

- anything you're either not personally invested in or that you're sure is established as real by overwhelming evidence is what you call "material."
- anything you're heavily personally invested in but isn't well-supported by evidence is what you call "immaterial."

Am I right?

And there's no evidence for dragons? How do you know?

There are certainly lots of ancient writings and folklore about dragons, just like there are about your god. Are these ancient writings and folklore not evidence?

And what evidence would you expect of dragons?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've already answered this. a dragon is a material being, and as such we would expect to find material evidence. But there is none. This is not the case with God. You cannot compare God and dragons.

Another point: the notion that a dragon is a "material being" is irrelevant, anyway.

Any inductive reasoning - e.g. scientific empiricism - is subject to some uncertainty.

It happens occasionally that the zoological community will declare a species extinct, only to find a living example of it a few years or decades later. If the scientific community can be wrong when it says that, for instance, the Bermuda petrel doesn't exist, how can you be absolutely sure that they got it right when they say that dragons don't exist?

Short version: you seem to be placing an unjustified - but rather selective - faith in science.