Replies

In the case of a believer, they might have observable inner experience which is nevertheless not replicable. But the at least have a data set of one. The quandry of the atheist is determining whether their lack of an inner experience implies a data set even that large.

Ooh, if you're going to invoke subjective feelings, telepathic communication, or whatnot into the argument, then that cuts both ways: We have much more than just one dataset. We all know of many people who obviously have subjective thoughts, feelings, convictions, epiphanies, and yes - hallucinations & delusions. Some of these people soberly insist that they talk to God & He talks right back to them. Some of these also insist that Satan tries to horn in on the conversation & turn them away from God.

The point is, inherently subjective experiences run the gamut from things we'd all agree are valid understandings of the real world as it is, all the way to utter lunacy. The reason we rose out of the bronze age is we figured out how to reliably approximate actual objective knowledge about the world at large by combining & evaluating everyone's subjective beliefs & experiences in a valid way. And so far, the fruits of this "intersubjective knowledge" have not made the case for God nor for ID, IMO.

And where did this "objective" analysis take place? Who was the great "objective" organizer that stated "Nuts over there, Real thinkers here." Darwinians self-importance wasn't in evidence quite yet. The reason man arose out of the dust is that man dreams, of things not "real".