Cofty: Believers get coy about defining their god because the more they say about it the easier it is to debunk. Therefore they try to be as vague as possible when debating about god. When it comes to proselytising though they have no problem being specific. Suddenly they know exactly what god does, says, likes and dislikes.
I agree.
What then constitutes "evidence"? A theist will present as evidence certain things (creation, beauty, goodness, miracles, revelations, holy writings) that a rationalist will dismiss as valid evidence. Then the theist pulls the card that he experiences god within, a personal mystical connection that only people of faith can possibly experience. To them, that's evidence. I presume this too will be dismissed by a rationalist. So, if both cannot agree on what is "evidence", where do we stand regarding knowledge? To the theist, he "knows" because he has "evidence" that god exists.
If an atheist has lack of evidence and evidence against, but no affirmative evidence of the inexistence of god ( because logically one can't prove a negative) what can he know about a given deity?
Eden