This guy again. Thinking he's a philbro with a gotcha. Look at all the "fancy philosophical words" he's using!
It boils down to him wanting evidence of my non-belief. All that huffing and puffing word salad to sound smart.
He says I have to prove my claim that I don't believe gods exist. Wtf man... No I don't. I know what I don't believe dummy. I could care less about what you want.
Another Kachelman Dodge.
What you did not answer because you cannot answer:
So what evidence can you point to that supports any inference that you truly believe what you claim to believe . . . that you have seen nothing that you believe qualifies as admissible “evidence” of any “god” that you believe others are claiming to exist.
Further, if you have no evidence to support your own claim as to your own state of mind (as it relates to the non-existence of “gods” and “evidence”), explain why you believe you can reasonably expect others to accept, on blind faith, your state of mind claim.
And, as the one making the claim as to your own state of mind, as the only one who can know directly the true state of your mind, the burden is on you to define the terms of your claim. In order to prove to you that the “god” you referenced in your claim exists, what attributes would you need to see evidence of? For example, if to you a “god” would include one with the attributes of Nero — who was the subject of a god claim, and who demanded worship and was worshipped, and who was regarded by his worshippers as having supernatural powers — the evidence would be different than the evidence that you are your own god, based simply on the fact that you put ultimate trust in self (the Biblical construct of a human seeking to be “like God”).