To any Atheists, I Have a Few Scenarios for you to Look At.

[Magic Man]

I agreed with evidence which discredited certain attributes of God. True. But you and I both know that isn't the evidence I asked for.

Whether or not it's the evidence you asked for, it's the relevant evidence. You can call it "not what you asked for", but that doesn't change the fact that it discredits your argument.

By the way, can you please stop assuming I'm an idiot who's refusing to accept what you're saying?

Where did I assume you were an idiot? I've said that I think you're intelligent. But you are refusing to accept what we're saying.

I am reading everything you're saying and thinking about it. But I still disagree and I can't see how it disproves anything.

That's probably because you don't want to.

 

[Cobblestones]

I am reading everything you're saying and thinking about it. But I still disagree and I can't see how it disproves anything.

So, your inability to get your point across to all the rest of us coupled with your inability to see what the rest of us are saying seem to have the same point of failure. In this particular string of Christmas lights, yours seems to be the one shorting out.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm the same. I'm willing to admit that because my belief is based on inductive reasoning, with no scientific empirical evidence to support it, then that belief isn't rational or logical. But then again, neither is atheism, because of the lack of evidence supporting that too.

It has been said that the default for any statement made without evidence should be skepticism, correct? Well, what if someone came up to you and said there was no God. Would you still meet that statement with skepticism?

It depends. Do I already believe in God? If so, then yes, someone would have to present me with evidence to support the claim that there is no god.

If they came up to me as I am right now, I wouldn't be skeptical of that statement, but that's because I've already seen the evidence on both sides of the argument.

What you are both doing is using your own inductive reasoning, your personal experiences, to come to the conclusions about God's existence/inexistence. But this reasoning is subjective, and varies depending on the individual. Neither party is being more logical than the other, because both people are only believing what makes sense to them.

No, we're using everyone's experiences, not just our own. That's why it's objective. Just because something makes sense to someone doesn't mean it is actually logical or reasonable.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Both theists and atheists have evidence to support their view. They're both using inductive reasoning. But that doesn't mean either of them have empirical evidence for or against - which is what I'm basing my "equally justified" statement on.

I think i deserve a longer and better response DarkSun. One which adresses the points i made.

 

[dorsk188]

I think i deserve a longer and better response DarkSun. One which adresses the points i made.

Wait your turn. He hasn't even refused to respond to my points yet. :sarcastic

 

[Smoke]

First off, I don't over-value rationality and logic.

That's the understatement of the week.

Can you explain exactly what belief it is for which you think atheists have evidence? I don't say definitively that there are no gods, because I -- obviously -- can't prove a negative and can't know everything. I say that there is insufficient evidence to convince me to believe in gods. If I'm wrong there must, in fact, be sufficient evidence to convince me. So produce it. If you can't, you're talking through your hat.

 

[Cobblestones]

Wait your turn. He hasn't even refused to respond to my points yet. :sarcastic

No fair! I get dibbs on a non-response.

 

[DarkSun]

That's the understatement of the week.

Can you explain exactly what belief it is for which you think atheists have evidence? I don't say definitively that there are no gods, because I -- obviously -- can't prove a negative and can't know everything. I say that there is insufficient evidence to convince me to believe in gods. If I'm wrong there must, in fact, be sufficient evidence to convince me. So produce it. If you can't, you're talking through your hat.

I understand what you're saying. You are saying that the statement: "God exists" should be met with skepticism unless there is sufficient evidence to support it. But can't you see that same reasoning both ways? If someone said: "God doesn't exist", then following your reasoning, that statement should be met with skepticism unless the evidence is provided against it.

You're saying that there is insufficient evidence to convince you that Gods exist. Fair enough. That's your opinion. But it's a completely different thing to go and say that your opinion is the most logical opinion when there is no more evidence for what you're suggesting than what any theist is suggesting.

I'm not over-valuing logic and rationality. Quite the opposite, actually. I'm saying that neither of us are being logical by taking a definitive stance and saying: "God probably doesn't exist" or "God probably does exist" because there is not evidence to support what we're saying. And what's more, I've never said there's anything wrong with that. Which really begs the question why I've been interpreted that way.

 

[DarkSun]

It wasn't designed to "discredit" what you say. It was an attempt to explain to you why your ideas on this subject are quite rightly perceived by atheists as "missing the point" of empiricism by a huge margin.

Read this:

[FONT=verdana, palatino, bookman old style]The Objectivity of Science [/FONT] [FONT=verdana, palatino, bookman old style]Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Skepticism [/FONT]
by Rochus Boerner [SIZE=-1] The progress of science depends on a finely tuned balance between open-mindedness and skepticism. Be too open minded, and you'll accept wrong claims. Be too skeptical, and you'll reject genuine new discoveries. Proper skepticism must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Unfortunately, much of what comes out of the "skeptical" community these days is not proper skepticism, but all-out, fundamentalist disbelief. Such skepticism can be called pseudo-skepticism, pathological skepticism or bogus skepticism.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Here are the warning signs of bogus skepticism.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]1. The Skeptic has reached her skeptical opinion not after careful research and examination of the claim, but simply based on media reports and other forms of second-hand knowledge.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Example: Pathological cold fusion skeptic Robert L. Park revealed in his March 1st 2002 What's New column that Science was going to publish an article on Sonofusion, and that even though he had not seen the paper, talked to the researchers or conducted any personal research in the area, he already knew that the Sonofusion discovery would turn out to be "a repeat of the cold fusion fiasco". Park used every bit of influence he had in a behind-the-scenes attempt to kill the paper. Luckily, the Science editor didn't cave and decided to publish.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2. Making uncontrolled criticisms. A criticism is uncontrolled if the same criticism could equally be applied to accepted science.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]For example, Park makes such a criticism in his book Voodoo Science (p.199). In the context of a discussion of an obviously pseudoscientific Good Morning America report on anomalous phenomena (debunkery by association: as if TV shows were the principal outlet for reporting the results of psi research!), Park writes[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Why, you may wonder, all this business of random machines? Jahn has studied random number generators, water fountains in which the subject tries to urge drops to greater heights, all sorts of machines. But it is not clear that any of these machines are truly random. Indeed, it is generally believed that there are no truly random machines. It may be, therefore, that the lack of randomness only begins to show up after many trials. Besides, if the mind can influence inanimate objects, why not simply measure the static force the mind can exert? Modern ultramicrobalances can routinely measure a force of much less than a billionth of an ounce. Why not just use your psychokinetic powers to deflect a microbalance? It's sensitive, simple, even quantitative, with no need for any dubious statistical analysis.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Where does Park's assessment that effects that are only indirectly detected, by statistical analysis, are suspect, leave conventional science? Deprived of one of its most powerful tools of analysis. The cherished 1992 COBE discovery of minute fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation would have to be thrown out, since it was entirely statistical in nature, and therefore by Park's argument, 'dubious'. The most celebrated discoveries of particle physics, such as the 1995 discovery of the top quark, or the results of neutrino detection experiments, or the synthesis of superheavy, extremely short-lived elements, would have to be thrown out, since they, too, are indirect and statistical in nature. Modern medicine would have to be invalidated as well because it relies on statistical analysis (of double- blind trials) to prove the efficacy of drugs.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]For comparison: the American Institute of Physics's Bulletin of Physics News, #216, March 3, 1995 gives the odds against chance for the top quark discovery as a million to one. A 1987 meta-analysis performed by Dean Radin and Roger Nelson of RNG (random number generator) experiments between 1959 and 1987 , on the other hand, shows the existence of an anomalous deviation from chance with odds against chance exceeding one trillion to one (see Radin, The Conscious Universe, p. 140).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Park's argument is the quintessential uncontrolled criticism: accepted scientific methods that constitute the backbone of modern science suddenly become questionable when they are used on phenomena that don't fit his ideological predilections.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]3. The Pseudoskeptical Catch-22: "unconventional claims have to be proved before they can be investigated!" This way, of course, they will never be investigated or proved.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Parapsychology has been significantly hampered by this pseudoskeptical attitude. Pseudoskeptics complain that effect sizes are not bigger; but at the same time, they scream bloody murder if any grant-making agency even so much considers doing something about it. Radin writes in The Conscious Universe:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The tactics of the extreme skeptics have been more than merely annoying. The professional skeptic's aggressive public labeling of parapsychology as a "pseudoscience", implying fraud or incompetence on the part of the researchers, has been instrumental in preventing this research from taking place at all.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]A similar situation exists in the new energy field. Pseudoskeptics like Robert L. Park are not content just dismissing things like cold fusion; they put massive pressure on policy makers and government to obstruct efforts to prove them wrong. Park's successful lobbying of the US patent office to withdraw Randall Mill's Black Light patent (which had already been approved!) comes to mind as an example.[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The unfortunate reality is that there is a complex sociology of science. Scientific truth is frequently not determined by right or wrong, but by ego, prestige, authority of claimants, conflicts of interests and economic agendas. Scientists who propose research that threatens the viability of basic theories on which authorities in the field have built their careers, and governments and corporations have bet lots of money will find themselves out of a job very soon. The list of of great scientists who became scientific outcasts after they published research that contradicts establishment dogma is long, and includes such names as Peter Duesberg, Brian Josephson, Jacques Benveniste, and of course Professors Pons and Fleischmann[/SIZE]

Objectivity of Science - Bogus Skepticism

[SIZE=-1]Disbelief in God is not based on science, logic or reason. It is not based on experimental data or careful analysis. It is based on opinion. And so is belief. That is a fact.[/SIZE]

 

[DarkSun]

Do you understand what I mean by "positive evidence"?

Why is everyone in this thread constantly assuming I'm ignorant, instead of actually considering what I'm saying? It's starting to get frustrating.

We must see positive evidence of a phenomenon before accepting it to be true. To do otherwise is irrational. Believing in something while completely lacking in positive evidence that suggests it might occur or exist is irrational.

It is logical that we must see evidence of a phenomena before assuming it to be true, full stop. No offense, but that's not what you're doing.

I'm astounded you can't see for yourself how ridiculous it is to defend the rationality of the belief in the tooth fairy, belief that humans can fly, belief in unicorns, belief that the moon is made of cheese - all to defend your indefensible point that belief in a non-evidenced proposition is exactly as rational as disbelief.

Belief that the moon is made of cheese has been disproven, so that latter part of your statement is a strawman.

And I've never defended the "rationality" of belief in the tooth fairy. I've just said that based on the evidence, belief and disbelief are equally justified.

Personally, I'm astounded that you can't see where I'm coming from.

You rob the word "rationality" of any meaning at all when you do this.

Something doesn't have to be based on evidence in order to see it as true. Example? Disbelief in God.

Disbelief requires no evidence. I'm not the one who proposed the existence of god/s despite a total lack of supporting evidence, so I have nothing to prove.

Fred still believes there is no God. Prove it.

You obviously do, since you insist that believing in proposals without any evidence supporting them is rational and logical, despite the obvious fact it is quite the opposite. That shows "rationality" and "logic" for you rate higher than "irrationality" and "illogic". A person who did not overvalue rationality would not feel the need to distort the meaning of their myths, stories, values and metaphors to force them to fit into the mold of rationality and logic. Ask a Hindu.

Nope. I just believe whatever makes sense to me. Usually it helps if such things are based on the available evidence, but not always.

I think you're making assumptions about me that aren't true. That isn't very nice.

No, if the word "rational" has any meaning at all, it is IRRATIONAL to believe in a proposition with no supporting evidence.

Proposition: It is unlikely that God exists.

Atheism is not a proposal. It is disbelief in a non-evidenced proposed fact.

Proposed fact: It is unlikely that God exists.

Still believe that? Why?

I can fly. Also, I have an arm growing out of the center of my forehead, and my skin is purple, and I can read minds. There is a tree growing in my back garden that bears grape Slurpees for fruit. My boyfriend is an alien from the planet Zygor, eleventy-million lightyears from earth. My feet are 25 inches long and 9 inches wide, so I have to wear clown shoes all the time.

I don't believe you. But this doesn't disprove anything I've said.

Do you believe any of that? If not, why not? According to you, it is exactly as logical to believe every word of it as to disbelieve any part of it.

Why not? Because it doesn't make sense to me. That doesn't mean I can disprove what you said, so my disbelief is no more justified than your belief.

Yes, of course. Does anyone know for a fact that, nowhere in the universe, is there any entity or intelligence that might appear to us as so similar to somebody's definition of "God" as to be reasonably attributed the name? No.

Agreed.

No, of course not. It's up to me to provide evidence that what I believe is true. If the evidence I provide is inadequate to convince another person, that's my problem, not theirs. They are right to disbelieve.

I agree here too.

Yes, it has been pointed out that science is perfectly well equipped to deliver evidence of a god,

Wrong. Science doesn't address the supernatural, it addresses the material.

as long as that god is defined as a higher intelligence that interferes with the natural world on our behalf, or who was responsible for certain claims of historical "fact".

Why?

So far, such studies have found that this god does not appear to exist -

I'd like to see your evidence.

prayer has no impact on mortality of the sick, there never was a global flood, manifestations of Jesus on the arse of a dog are quite obviously a natural pattern of hair growth...

... That was disappointing.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I understand what you're saying. You are saying that the statement: "God exists" should be met with skepticism unless there is sufficient evidence to support it. But can't you see that same reasoning both ways? If someone said: "God doesn't exist", then following your reasoning, that statement should be met with skepticism unless the evidence is provided against it.

This is the ultimate failure I see in your way of thinking. For a skeptic, the default position should be the negative until evidence is given to demonstrate the positive.

This is why we don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or God. There is no evidence to support their existence. And if there was, we'd have to objectively look at that.

Even still, your line of reasoning fails as soon as you use the word "God" because so many people define "God" as so many different things. There are a million versions of "God". Presumably, you mean YOUR God and have to demonstrate why your God exists versus someone else's and that includes other religions, etc. So when you say there is equal evidence for "God and the lack thereof", you need to define WHAT God you're talking about.

You're saying that there is insufficient evidence to convince you that Gods exist. Fair enough. That's your opinion. But it's a completely different thing to go and say that your opinion is the most logical opinion when there is no more evidence for what you're suggesting than what any theist is suggesting.

You keep drumming this line. I put the question to you, how can you have evidence for a negative? This is why the default position of a skeptic is the negative. In order to prove a negative, you would need to know everything. It isn't enough to say "There is no evidence to prove the positive, therefore this entity does not exist" because there is always the possibility of not-yet-encountered evidence. No, the onus is on the people making the claim God exists to back up their claim because it is impossible to prove a negative.

But if you believe in God, presumably you have a reason to believe in God and presumably that reason is evidence. Present it, or stop drumming this line.

I'm not over-valuing logic and rationality. Quite the opposite, actually. I'm saying that neither of us are being logical by taking a definitive stance and saying: "God probably doesn't exist" or "God probably does exist" because there is not evidence to support what we're saying. And what's more, I've never said there's anything wrong with that. Which really begs the question why I've been interpreted that way.

No, it's more reasonable to say "God probably doesn't exist" rather than "God probably does exist" because we have absolutely zero evidence for the existence of whatever you define God as. And if you try to slip the ropes by saying something utterly stupid like "God is love", I'm not denying love exists. I'm just denying the integrity of your definition of love. God isn't love. Love is love. God is god (if he were to exist).

It is impossible to prove a negative and this is your fundamental misunderstanding. Look at it this way. I demand that you prove to me we are not all made up of subatomic unicorns.

So you start naming off all sorts of subatomic particles. But then I put to you "What are those made of?" And then you have to demonstrate what those subatomic particles are made of. And then I ask again "What are those made of?"...the point being you cannot definitively prove that we are not made up of subatomic unicorns because there is always the possibility of overlooked evidence. We'll just keep on going. And then I can start making other arguments like "You can only see the unicorns if you believe in them" and then I always have a back door. I can never be disproven even though I am utterly and horrifically wrong.

However, since I'm the one making the positive claim (We are all made of subatomic unicorns), the onus is on me to provide that evidence because if it exists, I CAN demonstrate it. Why can't you demonstrate God?

 

[DarkSun]

DarkSun, You keep claiming that there's no evidence on either side. Well, you're wrong. Here's one piece of evidence to not believe any religious claims:

Humans are notorious exaggerators, and frequently ascribe patterns to unrelated phenomena.​

There. That's 1 piece of evidence against all theistic claims. It's now more logical to not believe than to believe, unless theists come up with one scrap of evidence for their claims. (Good luck with that.)

Source?

 

[DarkSun]

You're being intellectually lazy.

Lets take the example of the tooth fairy. We know the claims made by believers in the tooth fairy. They say she comes and replaces lost teeth with money. So, let's see if she does that. When teeth are left alone, the tooth fairy never comes, and cases where teeth are exchanged always involve a humans (usually the parents of the child). If there is a tooth fairy, she doesn't seem to exchange teeth for money (which was her primary descriptive characteristic).

So what else can we learn about the tooth fairy? We can look back in our own history and see that no one referenced the tooth fairy before the 18th century. So if she exists, she may not have always existed. We also know that different cultures tell similar stories about a "tooth mouse" with similar characteristics as the tooth fairy, and that other cultures have completely different traditions.

But we also know that human beings love to create stories about things that don't exist, particularly to delight their children. This is observed behavior of probably every human culture.

We are then faced with a few possibilities. (Try as I might, this may not be an exhaustive list.)

A) The tooth fairy, as a supernatural tooth-exchanging being exists, even though there are no recorded incidents of her exchanging teeth, and she was not apparently known to older or non-European cultures.

B) The tooth fairy is a human story, invented some time in the 18th century. She never actually existed and the stories told about her are the product of fantasy.

C) The stories of the tooth fairy had a basis in history. Perhaps a real-life woman or mouse began stealing teeth in the 18th century. The story was embellished in retellings, since then. No evidence of the historical figure remains.

D) (I'm sure there are other possibilities, so feel free to suggest some.)

What you seem to be misunderstanding, DS, is that most atoothfairyists are not claiming that A is impossible, we're claiming that A is the least likely scenario. B reflects the experiments we do (leaving a tooth) and our understanding of human nature, so we accept it as the most likely explanation of the tooth fairy stories. C and other ideas are interesting, but there's no evidence to suggest they are true (and it's probable that there would be some sort of historical evidence).

There, we've spent the time to look at the situation closely, and rendered a result. That's all atheists do: choose the more likely.

Fine, you've just shown that the analogy used is a poor one. If you set up a camera in your room, you'd probably find that no fairy is stealing your teeth. Now that we have that out of the way, apply similar logic to every God-concept known and tell me how it goes.

 

[Vile Atheist]

YouTube - Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson - American Atheists 09

Enough said.

 

[DarkSun]

I predict that it will merely run in the same circle as this one has.

Mmm... I should probably stop posting. I've made myself clear.


It's strange, really. All four of the people I sent an e-mail to said they could understand where I was coming from... and one of them actually commented on how strongly atheists were supporting their views upon being challenged... and how it was sort of amusing given the context.

 

[DarkSun]

YouTube - Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson - American Atheists 09

Enough said.

I can't watch all fifty-minutes on that on the uni computers, but I'll watch it at home.

Sorry, I get charged for every kilobyte I download.

 

[DarkSun]

It is impossible to prove a negative and this is your fundamental misunderstanding. Look at it this way. I demand that you prove to me we are not all made up of subatomic unicorns.

Why not strings?

 

[McBell]

Mmm... I should probably stop posting. I've made myself clear.

Yes, you have made yourself clear.
Why it is you think that the only reason no one agrees with you is because of not understanding is beyond me.

We do understand what you are saying.
It's just that you are flat out wrong.

It's strange, really. All four of the people I sent an e-mail to said they could understand where I was coming from... and one of them actually commented on how strongly atheists were supporting their views upon being challenged... and how it was sort of amusing given the context.

Yes, the choir pats you on the back and you assume that that validates your position.
Of course, that type of ratification is a large part of what is wrong in the world.

so how many people have to disagree with you before you actually stop and realize that you might actually be wrong?

I mean, it only takes four people to agree with you to make you think that anyone who disagrees must not understand your position...

 

[Magic Man]

I understand what you're saying. You are saying that the statement: "God exists" should be met with skepticism unless there is sufficient evidence to support it. But can't you see that same reasoning both ways? If someone said: "God doesn't exist", then following your reasoning, that statement should be met with skepticism unless the evidence is provided against it.

Only if the person assumes God exists. If they don't, then it's not much of a claim. If they don't, it's the same as saying "A 10-foot-long dragonfly with the head of a lion doesn't exist". Well, duh.

 

[Magic Man]

Why is everyone in this thread constantly assuming I'm ignorant, instead of actually considering what I'm saying? It's starting to get frustrating.

You're still on this "You're not listening to what I'm saying" thing? I thought you'd get over that by now. Oh well. Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean we don't understand what you're saying. We do understand...and yet we still know you're wrong.

It is logical that we must see evidence of a phenomena before assuming it to be true, full stop. No offense, but that's not what you're doing.

"Phenomena" is plural. The singular is "phenomenon". No offense, but that's exactly what we're doing.

Belief that the moon is made of cheese has been disproven, so that latter part of your statement is a strawman.

How has it been disproved, and how do you figure belief in a certain type of god hasn't been disproved in the same way?

Personally, I'm astounded that you can't see where I'm coming from.

Personally, I'm astounded that you can't see that it's not us not seeing where you're coming from, it's us telling you we know where you're coming from, and you're wrong.

Something doesn't have to be based on evidence in order to see it as true. Example? Disbelief in God.

Fine, but then that belief is not justified.

Fred still believes there is no God. Prove it.

Prove he doesn't believe? OK, Fred do you believe in God? No. There you have it.

Prove there's no god? We don't have to. The claim is that there is a god. The evidence has to be for that. This is exactly why people ask you questions like whether you understand the concept of "positive claim". How many times do people have to tell you that you can't prove a negative, but that doesn't mean you're justified in believing in it?

Nope. I just believe whatever makes sense to me. Usually it helps if such things are based on the available evidence, but not always.

Oh, believe me, we can see that you believe some things that aren't based on any evidence.

I think you're making assumptions about me that aren't true. That isn't very nice.

You have yet to prove that they're not true. Until then, she's justified in her assumptions. Besides, she's as justified in believing things about you as you are in not believing those things, right? I mean you both have the same amount of evidence, right?

Proposition: It is unlikely that God exists.

Yup, and we've already shown why it's rational to believe that. Because there's evidence to support that claim, which we've already gone over.

Proposed fact: It is unlikely that God exists.

Still believe that? Why?

BECAUSE THERE'S EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. What does it take to get through that skull?

I don't believe you. But this doesn't disprove anything I've said.

Why don't you believe her? Maybe because her claims don't jive with what you know about the world? Maybe because claims like she made would require some good evidence for you to believe? Amazing how that works, huh?

Again, I know you like the whole "I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, so your beliefs are just as justified as mine" thing, but it's simply not true. Some people are stupid, some people are ugly, some people are fat, some beliefs are completely unjustified and irrational.

Why not? Because it doesn't make sense to me.

And why doesn't it make sense to you? Because it goes against everything you know about the world.

That doesn't mean I can disprove what you said, so my disbelief is no more justified than your belief.

Yes, you can actually disprove what she said. Just tell her to meet you somewhere. Just stop trying to make people feel better by saying "Oh, your belief is just as good as mine". It's just not true, and it only perpetuates irrationality and stupidity.

Wrong. Science doesn't address the supernatural, it addresses the material.

Why?

Because, as you say, science deals with the material. If God affected our world in some way, we should be able to prove it. If it was God who parted the Red Sea for Moses, we should have evidence of it. Yet all we have evidence of is the natural drying up of the sea in a particular area that happens every day or so.

I'd like to see your evidence.

See above for an example.

... That was disappointing.

So, you want evidence, but you want a specific kind of evidence? Any old evidence won't do? That's like saying "Show me evidence for the existence of rocks. OK, here are some rocks. That was disappointing". :sarcastic