I'm calling it Meta's Trident because Hume gets his fork and I have a giant ego.

So, I've been working on this for the past hour or so and I thought I'd drop it here. It's essentially an argument against a conception of a theistic (and, perhaps, deistic) deity which relies on three thrusts:
1) Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
2) Analytic propositions don't entail synthetic conclusions.
3) A purely non-empirical deity has no epistemic value whatsoever.

First:
- I demonstrated this with Bayesian probability is that other, very mathsy thread. I think other people grasp it better if I use an analogy, however. The propositions is this: There exists an invisible unicorn around Loch Ness, which floats around on the surface of the water from dusk till dawn and summons a spiritual bear to kidnap nearby, misbehaving children and transports them to his transdimensional nether-realm.

A group of researchers set up camp for a year, and record the loch every night. Alongside this, they gather data about current and historical instances of missing children within a certain radius of the loch and watch for annual patters while comparing it to the data from other regions. They find nothing. This satisfies the three necessary assumptions of: empirical potential; improbability; and a fruitless search for evidence. Nobody is going to argue we can't reasonable the conclude the probable non-existence of such a unicorn and his bear.

Second:
- Analytic propositions don't entail synthetic conclusions. Do I really need to explain this one? It's the entire reason why the ontological argument doesn't work; you can't simply define something into existence.

Third:
- This cuts to the heart of epistemology, itself. But, fundamentally, epistemology comes down to the functional operation of making sure our conceptual frameworks are non-contradictory, and gathering reliable information about the empirical world. A God which is, by definition, non-empirical has no influence and therefore no epistemic value to us whatsoever.

You're just restating arguments I've already addressed. I think this is less of an argument against the existence of a god, and more of an argument of the futility of pursuing the knowledge of one. It's a helpful reassurance of one's atheism, but not particularly compelling to me, at least.

I'm on a cross-country trip to Florida, so that kind of discussion isn't really meant to be done from a phone. Tonight at the hotel, maybe?

You two are just the best

[Editing to avoid derailing the thread: HAPPY BIRTHDAY META]

I may have to redact my offer of a potential conversation tonight, since I'm going out to celebrate my 18th >.>