Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

[GeeMack]

Though the explanation will once again fall on deaf ears - if I see this argument used one more time [...]

My prediction is that this post will be ignored, and we'll see the same argument trotted out again in a few pages time...

Probably less than a few pages. But...

When suggesting explanations for heretofore unexplained events or phenomena, there are, as Mobyseven and others have said, an infinite number of possibilities. Only one of those possibilities is that Beth's god did it. That leaves, well, pretty much an infinite number of other explanations which all fall into the not-Beth's-god category. And even only a relative tiny few of those would be that other-people's-gods did it. So given exactly the same total lack of objective evidence supporting any one of the infinite possibilities, to consider the intervention of a particular god, or any god at all for that matter, a more reasonable explanation than any other is, in a word, irrational.

So, "is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?" Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear one of the faithful or one of the apologists give an honest, succinct reply of, "No," without all the gyrations, semantics twisting, and excuse making?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree with you on this point and understand that the belief is not evidence. But I do think the illness is evidence in support of their belief. Do you disagree with that? Because if so, I need you to explain to me how it is that coming down with the flu after getting the shot is evidence when it happens to study participants but not when it happens to an individual of your acquaintance? My contention is that it is evidence in both cases, but the quality and reliability of the conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence is quite different. Hmmm. Is that what you’ve been trying to say? I would agree that it isn’t so much the quality of the evidence as it is the quality of the conclusions you can draw from the evidence.


No, I don’t think is the same as seeing red. That merely provides a useful analogy for some aspects of it. You talk about confirming one’s conclusion that the color red is correct. How do you do that? We do that by getting concurrence from other people who can tell red from green. We learn, from childhood, that a particular sensory experience is called ‘red’. I think that people are similarly taught what spiritual experiences are and how to label them in concordance with other people’s experiences.

Do you feel that I am incorrectly saying that the person’s belief that they got the flu from the flu shot is evidence that they did? Because that is not what I am saying. I’m saying that the timing of the person’s illness is evidence in support of their conclusion. It doesn’t make it a correct conclusion; we agree on that aspect.

When a person believes that god exists because they have experienced god’s presence in their life, I think that is evidence of god existance in the same way that the person getting the flu is evidence that the vaccination made them sick. It isn’t proof, but it is supporting evidence.

When you say that people’s experiences are not evidence because they are incorrectly interpreting their experience, well that seems analogous to saying the person who got the flu vaccination is incorrect in thinking they were ill and therefore, it isn’t evidence that the flu shot made them ill because they weren’t actually ill at all.

I can't believe I still have hope you will understand. You probably think I will come around to your understanding as well and I know I won't because I recognize the error you are making. I do, however, think we are closer to understanding where each other is coming from. So let me try to meet you half way.

You said in regards to the flu shot/illness example, "I’m saying that the timing of the person’s illness is evidence in support of their conclusion.".

We both have no trouble seeing the symptoms are evidence. I also agree the timing of the symptoms is evidence. I don't disagree with that at all. And the timing could easily lead someone to the wrong conclusion the flu shot caused the illness.

But here's the catch. Regardless of the person's conclusion about what the evidence supported, the evidence didn't really support that conclusion. And I completely agree, the timing was evidence to that person. And it supported that person's belief.

What you are missing here is that the person's conclusion does not change reality. Either the vaccine caused the illness or it didn't regardless of the conclusions anyone draws. The thing we have to do is determine the correct conclusion. And that person drawing the incorrect conclusion gets us no closer to the right conclusion. Their false conclusion was not evidence. And it especially was not evidence their conclusion was correct.

I don't have to conduct a rigorous scientific study to correctly conclude that a person drawing an incorrect conclusion is not evidence. I already know from overwhelming rigorous scientific research that people draw false conclusions from personal experiences. It is ubiquitously common.

So we are not so far apart as you might think. (I am hopeful, anyway.) The person's wrong conclusion, based on real evidence, did not make it any more real that the flu shot caused the symptoms.

By the same token, the person's conclusion about whatever thing they experience(d) which leads(led) them to believe god(s) exist does not change the reality of whether or not gods exist. So we have to determine if whatever it is the person has experienced is evidence for the actual existence of god(s). In doing so, we already know from overwhelming evidence, regardless of what a person believes an experience means, they are just as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. (One may be more likely to be correct about what color one sees, but less likely to interpret correctly a whole slew of other things.)

You are correct that the experience a believer has is convincing to that person. But you are incorrect to think that because a person has drawn a conclusion about the significance of their experience, the conclusion they have drawn is actually evidence.

In the case of the flu shot, the symptoms were evidence and the timing was evidence. The individual drew the wrong conclusion from the evidence. And they were indeed using what we define as evidence to draw their conclusion. But the conclusion they drew was not evidence.

So if all you are saying is the evidence which convinces an individual that gods exist is enough to draw a valid conclusion as far as that individual is concerned, we agree. But the fact they had an experience, regardless of what they believe it was, does not change reality. And we know from good scientific data, the individual's conclusions about what an experience really was is not by itself a reliable conclusion. We are still left with, the experience is evidence, the conclusion is not.

When a person believes that god exists because they have experienced god’s presence in their life, I think that is evidence of god existance in the same way that the person getting the flu is evidence that the vaccination made them sick. It isn’t proof, but it is supporting evidence.

Both of these are examples of evidence an individual interprets. Yes, the illness, the timing and the experience (whatever it was) are all evidence. The interpretation that the flu shot caused the illness and the interpretation the experience was because a an actual god created the experience, remain as interpretations of the evidence, not the evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

So, "is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?" Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear one of the faithful or one of the apologists give an honest, succinct reply of, "No," without all the gyrations, semantics twisting, and excuse making?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

When a person believes that god exists because they have experienced god’s presence in their life, I think that is evidence of god existance in the same way that the person getting the flu is evidence that the vaccination made them sick. It isn’t proof, but it is supporting evidence.

But wouldn’t this have to written more like: "When a person believes that god exists because they have interpreted their experience as if they experienced 'god’s' presence in their life..."? So far we can only assume they are interpretations, not authentic experiences of X. In terms of the flue vaccine, scientific evidence is one way of getting past the initial assumption of the experience merely being an interpretation, whereas when it comes to the interpretation of experiencing god, it remains as an interpretation if no more evidence can be found to support a conclusion.

Thus, we cannot call simple experiences evidence for the existence of god; they are merely raw materials for interpretations.

 

[Beth]

So if all you are saying is the evidence which convinces an individual that gods exist is enough to draw a valid conclusion as far as that individual is concerned, we agree.

That's all I'm saying. It's quite reasonable for an individual to look at they evidence they have and draw a valid conclusion that god exists. Gee, we can agree.

 

[Beth]

But wouldn’t this have to written more like: "When a person believes that god exists because they have interpreted their experience as if they experienced 'god’s'presence in their life..."? So far we can only assume they are interpretations, not authentic experiences of X. In terms of the flue vaccine, scientific evidence is one way of getting past the initial assumption of the experience merely being an interpretation, whereas when it comes to the interpretation of experiencing god, it remains as an interpretation if no more evidence can be found to support a conclusion.

This goes into the point I've been discussing with Cyborg. What is your default assumption? If you assume 'no god exists', then you are correct. However, if you assume that god exists, then it's a bit like saying they have interpreted their experience as if they saw the color red or as if they had the flu. Yes, they might be mistaken. The individual might be color blind or might have suffered food poisoning. But we don't usually phrase it as 'interpreting their experience'.

Our estimate of the probability of an individual being correct versus mistaken in their interpretation of the experience is dependent on our default assumption. If you assume 'no god exists' you conclude they are mistaken and interpreted their experience as if they experienced 'god’s'presence in their life..." seems a precise way to illustrate you doubt the accuracy of their interpretation. If you don't assume that, such phrasing seems a rather stilted and unnecessarily complex way of emphasizing a possibility that always exists, even for the most mundane of experiences, such as claiming something is red.

Thus, we cannot call simple experiences evidence for the existence of god; they are merely raw materials for interpretations.

I call such experiences evidence the same way I would term eyewitness testimony of any sort evidence. Such testimony is not suffiicent to prove a case. It's unreliable. People can lie or make errors of interpretation. Credibility of the witness is an important factor in evaluting it. Doubt remains.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

This goes into the point I've been discussing with Cyborg. What is your default assumption? If you assume 'no god exists', then you are correct. However, if you assume that god exists, then it's a bit like saying they have interpreted their experience as if they saw the color red or as if they had the flu. Yes, they might be mistaken. The individual might be color blind or might have suffered food poisoning. But we don't usually phrase it as 'interpreting their experience'.

But when it comes to something non-provable or improbable, I think it’s in order to phrase it as such.

Our estimate of the probability of an individual being correct versus mistaken in their interpretation of the experience is dependent on our default assumption. If you assume 'no god exists' you conclude they are mistaken and interpreted their experience as if they experienced 'god’s'presence in their life..." seems a precise way to illustrate you doubt the accuracy of their interpretation. If you don't assume that, such phrasing seems a rather stilted and unnecessarily complex way of emphasizing a possibility that always exists, even for the most mundane of experiences, such as claiming something is red.

We can test if the claim of experiencing red is correct (not absolutely, but to a satisfying degree). We cannot do that for the claim of experiencing god (unless you have a proposition for how that could be done). Maybe it’s not necessarily too complex of a phrasing when we’re dealing with something that doesn’t involve a denotation, but have fundamental consequences for a person's worldview?

 

[Beth]

But when it comes to something non-provable or improbable, I think it’s in order to phrase it as such.

We can test if the claim of experiencing red is correct (not absolutely, but to a satisfying degree). We cannot do that for the claim of experiencing god (unless you have a proposition for how that could be done).

if the red object can be observed by someone else, yes, we can test that claim. But if the red object is no longer available for inspection by others, it cannot be tested.

Maybe it’s not necessarily too complex of a phrasing when we’re dealing with something that doesn’t involve a denotation, but have fundamental consequences for a person's worldview?

I don't think it's too complex. You are treating the claim/evidence similarly to how you treat other claims, such as ESP or ghosts, for which you have assumed non-existance. My point is that for people who assume existance are also treating it similarly to how they treat other claims with a default assumption that something exists, such as a claim that something is red or a person had flu. I think both are reasonable approaches.

 

[thoth108]

Taoism.

I'm jumping in this thread kinda late here, and I realize that I'm interrupting a conversation, so I apologize for both. Here is my answer to the original query:

There seems to be a rash of atheism vs theism threads going on right now. Several have requested atheists support their conclusions about the non-existence of gods. I could ask what evidence do god believers have for their theist conclusions but I already know the usual answers. I'm not interested in any of the faith explanations, they belong solely to the believer.

My "faith" or theism is Taoism, but it's really not a faith. Our philosophy is designed around observing natural forces at work, and following the Way of that natural flow. My reason for choosing it: There is no "God" in Taoism. If anything, the philosphy points towards "God" being the natural forces at work in the universe. That would be logical, if there is a God. Not a guy who looks like a Greek sculpture of a man sitting on a throne of gold, with his hippie son by his side (no offense, but Jesus has long hair, and that makes him a hippie ). It seems to me that God would be infallable(being that he's omniscient and all!), and therefore everything is going along as planned, so whatever the natural order of things is then that exhibits the plan of God; but it is NOT evidence of God.

But I am interested in the evidence one has for believing in one particular version of god over another. If you are just going to describe intangible inner feelings, there's no need. That isn't evidence. If you are going to make some value statement, monotheism is superior to polytheism, I doubt you can actually support that claim but feel free to offer your evidence.

I am interested in how theists can support their cognitive dissonance of recognizing other god beliefs are false, yet justifying their own gods beliefs are true. And why do you think you just happened to be born where 'true' god beliefs were common and those born into cultures with other god beliefs were not so 'blessed'? Or do you think the fact people tend to believe in the religions they grew up with is worth considering as evidence against the validity of any god beliefs?

I am challenging believers here but please, I mean no disrespect. This is about evidence and beliefs, not about who's right and who's wrong.

No disrespect taken. Conversation like this is important!

I recognize that everyone's beliefs are just that: BELIEFS. That said, I take all religions and non-religious philosophies equally and fairly; they are each doing the best job that they can to search for words and ideas that define the Divine, which is an intangible, indescribable experience that seems to me to be different to every individual. There are no wrong religions, and there are no right religions; there is just religion - man's attempt to put into words that which cannot be put into words.

Why Taoism for me: Because Taoism and the big bang can go hand and hand. The big bang, and the subsequent cosmic expansion, is probably the closest view we have of the, "work of God," if you want to believe there is intelligence behind the chaos. I don't know if there is intelligence behind creation, there isn't evidence to support that gnosis. What I see when I look at cosmic expansion and the forming of galaxies and life is: order descending out of chaos. That is the natural flow of things, and so to me it is a visible aspect of the Tao. To live in harmony with the natural order of things is good philosophy for finding happiness, and such is the philosphy of Taoism.

I respect everyones' religious beliefs, no matter how silly. We're all different. Peace!

 

[Mobyseven]

My prediction is that this post will be ignored, and we'll see the same argument trotted out again in a few pages time...

Probably less than a few pages.

This goes into the point I've been discussing with Cyborg. What is your default assumption? If you assume 'no god exists', then you are correct. However, if you assume that god exists, then it's a bit like saying they have interpreted their experience as if they saw the color red or as if they had the flu. Yes, they might be mistaken. The individual might be color blind or might have suffered food poisoning. But we don't usually phrase it as 'interpreting their experience'.

GeeMack wins that round.

Seriously, do woos have some kind of filter in their brain that prevents them from being intellectually honest?

 

[GeeMack]

That's all I'm saying. It's quite reasonable for an individual to look at they evidence they have and draw a valid conclusion that god exists.

And of course, using this line of reasoning, Beth would accept as truths...

• It's quite reasonable for an individual to look at the evidence they have and draw a valid conclusion that leprechauns exist.
  
  
• It's quite reasonable for an individual to look at the evidence they have and draw a valid conclusion that ghosts exist.
  
  
• It's quite reasonable for an individual to look at the evidence they have and draw a valid conclusion that ESP exists.
  
  
• It's quite reasonable for an individual to look at the evidence they have and draw a valid conclusion that invisible pink unicorns exist.
  
  
• It's quite reasonable for an individual to look at the evidence they have and draw a valid conclusion that invisible smurfs that stick to the blades of window fans with suckers like an octopus and exhale through their butts to make the fan blow exist.

Gee, Beth, must be fun to be you where it's reasonable for anyone to imagine anything and draw a valid conclusion that it exists. Or... is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false? Do you have the courage and honesty to give us a straight yes or no answer?

 

[articulett]

So, "is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?" Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear one of the faithful or one of the apologists give an honest, succinct reply of, "No," without all the gyrations, semantics twisting, and excuse making?

But then they wouldn't get to feel superior to all the atheists for their "faith" or their (imagined) "open mindedness" while also feeling superior to all the woo they don't believe.

I am amazed at the mental games that are played so that ones own beliefs are shielded from scrutiny even though, from an objective standard, they are equally likely to be true as the supernatural explanations they find wooish-- equally built on nothing... equally rife with faulty inferences, magical conclusions, semantic spin, and logical fallacies.

How can people imagine that "god belief" or "god agnosticism" is better or truer or based on something more real than demon belief or "demon agnosticism" and that they are "better than" the "atheist corner of the debate" for "believing" in such? There isn't a real reason is there?... I mean god belief makes you feel all warm and fuzzy and special and holier-than-thou... but it's not more reasonable is it? But they are so impenetrable. They can't see it. They get all miffed and blame the people who point out the obvious--all so they can imagine themselves superior and their woo more true.

Does anyone other than the faithful find the faithful as diplomatic and conversationally adept as they imagine themselves? I end up feeling like I'm conversing with an automaton programmed to "keep the faith" and block out the facts and folks that threaten it. Lots of words, but nothing said.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's all I'm saying. It's quite reasonable for an individual to look at they evidence they have and draw a valid conclusion that god exists. Gee, we can agree.

It's quite reasonable for an individual to look at they evidence they have and draw a valid an invalid conclusion that god exists. Gee, we can agree close but still no cigar.

Nor does their misinterpretation of the evidence become evidence.

Stop, think it through, Beth. Try again. Oh, and see GeeMack's examples above. He's made some good analogies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...My "faith" or theism is Taoism, but it's really not a faith. Our philosophy is designed around observing natural forces at work, and following the Way of that natural flow. My reason for choosing it: There is no "God" in Taoism. If anything, the philosphy points towards "God" being the natural forces at work in the universe. That would be logical, if there is a God. Not a guy who looks like a Greek sculpture of a man sitting on a throne of gold, with his hippie son by his side (no offense, but Jesus has long hair, and that makes him a hippie ). It seems to me that God would be infallable(being that he's omniscient and all!), and therefore everything is going along as planned, so whatever the natural order of things is then that exhibits the plan of God; but it is NOT evidence of God....

Interesting. Sounds like a version of Deism. My question to you then is, why bother adding the god layer to your interpretation of the evidence of the natural world?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

if the red object can be observed by someone else, yes, we can test that claim. But if the red object is no longer available for inspection by others, it cannot be tested.

We can also make predictions about one’s experiences when a new red object is introduced; we can ask if that gives rise to the same experience of seeing red; we can even – at least in theory – look for correlations in the brain when a new red object is presented. In short, we have both an external and an internal representation that we can test and possibly look for a causal link (also in retrospect, to a limited degree). What do we have for claims of god-experiences and the existence of god?

don't think it's too complex. You are treating the claim/evidence similarly to how you treat other claims, such as ESP or ghosts, for which you have assumed non-existance. My point is that for people who assume existance are also treating it similarly to how they treat other claims with a default assumption that something exists, such as a claim that something is red or a person had flu. I think both are reasonable approaches.

I don’t need to assume non-existence as an a priori stance to most phenomena that doesn’t exist (just like Moby has pointed out several times). Such a stance can however be the result when an experience leads to an interpretation and is then forwarded as claim about something extraordinary (experiencing god). Non-existence or existence should be a result, not a point of departure, especially when talking about something extraordinary like god-experiences and claims about them being true. This is mainly a problem for believers, they have a priori god-beliefs that tend to make any interpretation about an extraordinary experience biased from the start; they tend make conclusions that aren’t necessary warranted through non-biased interpretations of evidence. Such a position is rationally far more unreasonable than the lack of a predilection. Lack of predilection doesn’t man an assumed non-existence; there must be a claim that’s investigated first. Hence, once again, assumed non-existence is the result.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

But then they wouldn't get to feel superior to all the atheists for their "faith" or their (imagined) "open mindedness" while also feeling superior to all the woo they don't believe.

I am amazed at the mental games that are played so that ones own beliefs are shielded from scrutiny even though, from an objective standard, they are equally likely to be true as the supernatural explanations they find wooish-- equally built on nothing... equally rife with faulty inferences, magical conclusions, semantic spin, and logical fallacies.

How can people imagine that "god belief" or "god agnosticism" is better or truer or based on something more real than demon belief or "demon agnosticism" and that they are "better than" the "atheist corner of the debate" for "believing" in such? There isn't a real reason is there?... I mean god belief makes you feel all warm and fuzzy and special and holier-than-thou... but it's not more reasonable is it? But they are so impenetrable. They can't see it. They get all miffed and blame the people who point out the obvious--all so they can imagine themselves superior and their woo more true.

Does anyone other than the faithful find the faithful as diplomatic and conversationally adept as they imagine themselves? I end up feeling like I'm conversing with an automaton programmed to "keep the faith" and block out the facts and folks that threaten it. Lots of words, but nothing said.

Aye. Then there is the more subtle classification. For lack of a better term, it's the "pseudo scientific woo." They'll drop some scientific terms and give you the impression they understand some basic concepts.
Therein lies the snare.
You take it on face value that you can communicate with such a target as if you can actually have a discourse.
You attempt to achieve some common ground using the exact same concepts that they had originally brought up. Unfortunately, it soon becomes painfully obvious that that approach has no effect.
So, rather than giving up, you switch gears and use another brand of woo to cut through their woo. This has the same result as your first attempt.
Yes, there seems to be glimmers of rationality, but it's so deeply suppressed, it's like getting a Vulcan to crack a laugh.

I'll give 'em a C for creativity and spinning woo in more subtle and clever way, but a D- for forum selection. You'd think they would realize that no rational person is going to fall for unsubstantiated claims backed by nothing.

I suppose it's a side effect of having a well known public forum, it tends to draw them like magnets.
Yes, we need some for sheer entertainment and exercise, but once the level reaches greater than about 30%, it requires judicious use of "the button."

 

[Beth]

It's quite reasonable for an individual to look at they evidence they have and draw a valid an invalid conclusion that god exists. Gee, we can agree close but still no cigar.

Well, actually they are assuming their conclusion - i.e. god exists. On the other hand, so do atheists.

Nor does their misinterpretation of the evidence become evidence.

How do you know they are misinterpreting the evidence? Do you have some way of establishing that yes they are correct or no they aren't? Isn't it because you are assuming as a premise that 'no god exists'?

Stop, think it through, Beth. Try again. Oh, and see GeeMack's examples above. He's made some good analogies.

I have GeeMack on ignore. He's too abrasive for me. What examples did you find good analogies.

 

[Mobyseven]

Well, actually they are assuming their conclusion - i.e. god exists.

Often correct. This is called 'begging the question' and is a logical fallacy.

On the other hand, so do atheists.

No, they don't. "There is no god," is the conclusion, not the premise.

How do you know they are misinterpreting the evidence? Do you have some way of establishing that yes they are correct or no they aren't? Isn't it because you are assuming as a premise that 'no god exists'?

Nope. It's because when we try to establish that they are correct, we come to a dead end. That's the problem - there is no evidence that supports their interpretation of their experience. We have only their subjective say so on the matter.

I have GeeMack on ignore. He's too abrasive for me. What examples did you find good analogies.

How surprising. You put someone else who is sick of your nonsense on ignore.

 

[-Fran-]

And of course, using this line of reasoning, Beth would accept as truths...

• It's quite reasonable for an individual to look at the evidence they have and draw a valid conclusion that leprechauns exist.
  
  
• It's quite reasonable for an individual to look at the evidence they have and draw a valid conclusion that ghosts exist.
  
  
• It's quite reasonable for an individual to look at the evidence they have and draw a valid conclusion that ESP exists.
  
  
• It's quite reasonable for an individual to look at the evidence they have and draw a valid conclusion that invisible pink unicorns exist.
  
  
• It's quite reasonable for an individual to look at the evidence they have and draw a valid conclusion that invisible smurfs that stick to the blades of window fans with suckers like an octopus and exhale through their butts to make the fan blow exist.

Actually, as I understood it, she actually DID use this very line of reasoning to accept these examples as true (that it is reasonable for people to draw the conclusion that leprechauns and other such things exist, as long as there are enough cultural myths about the creature in question in the place where they live) in another thread. Go figure

 

[Beth]

We can also make predictions about one’s experiences when a new red object is introduced; we can ask if that gives rise to the same experience of seeing red; we can even – at least in theory – look for correlations in the brain when a new red object is presented. In short, we have both an external and an internal representation that we can test and possibly look for a causal link (also in retrospect, to a limited degree). What do we have for claims of god-experiences and the existence of god?

There have been some experiments that suggest certain neural correlates for mystical or god-experiences. Does this imply that some god exists? Or that no god exists? The questions remain unanswered and, IMO, unanswerable. People assume the conclusion they wish to adopt.

I don’t need to assume non-existence as an a priori stance to most phenomena that doesn’t exist (just like Moby has pointed out several times).

Correct, you don't have to assume non-existance a priori. As I have pointed out to cyborg, it is a subjective judgement call. You can assume existance instead.

Such a stance can however be the result when an experience leads to an interpretation and is then forwarded as claim about something extraordinary (experiencing god). Non-existence or existence should be a result, not a point of departure, especially when talking about something extraordinary like god-experiences and claims about them being true.

I quite agree. In scientific experiments, the general procedure is to assume the opposite of what you wish to conclude (this becomes the null hypothesis) and try to show it false. This cannot be done for the question of the existance of god. The null cannot be rejected, regardless of which stance you choose as your null.

This is mainly a problem for believers, they have a priori god-beliefs that tend to make any interpretation about an extraordinary experience biased from the start; they tend make conclusions that aren’t necessary warranted through non-biased interpretations of evidence.

Odd, they don't see to find it a problem. It's only the atheists who have a problem with a priori god-beliefs. As I said earlier, people assume the conclusion they wish to adopt. As far as a non-biased interpretation of the evidence - what would that be? That they are mistaken about their conclusion? That seems just as biased to me as assuming the opposite, that they are not mistaken.

Such a position is rationally far more unreasonable than the lack of a predilection. Lack of predilection doesn’t man an assumed non-existence; there must be a claim that’s investigated first. Hence, once again, assumed non-existence is the result.

Your choice of the a priori assumption is a value judgement. You can claim one is more 'rational' than the other, but then that becomes a value judgement regarding what is rational and what is not It is also rational to accept what numerous other human beings have experienced and how they have interpreted their experiences.

Since one assumption or another must be made in order to conduct any investigation and whichever one is made will bias the results, the only 'unbiased' approach I'm acquainted with is to try out both assumptions and see if one can be rejected. When I take this approach, neither of those a priori assumptions can be falsified. So people assume the conclusion they wish to adopt.