Microsoft exists?

OK, I've done some research regarding Dr. Anthony Flew, you might want to take a look at this:

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=138

and this

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

 

Willfully sloppy scholarship. lol.. That is so great.

 

That's understandable. I would too.

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. So evidence can be made of more than sensory perception? So, what *would* constitute evidence? So far we have that "it does things, makes and sells things, pays taxes, etc." God might also do these things (except pay taxes... He would be exempt). However, the most apparent difference is that Microsoft acts *and* claims to be Microsoft to the world in its actions. Microsoft pays someone and the check bears Microsoft's name. This is good. But the only reason we know that Microsoft is doing these actions is because Microsoft attaches it's name to them. So our evidence depends not on action itself, but on the entity claiming action as action occurs. All companies and governments do this, does God?

I think we are on the same page now.

Effects can usually be measured I agree. How do we link effects to causal agents though? Is it possible to link an effect to a non-existent entity? Is it possible to not link an effect to an existent entity? In the case of most governments and corporations, we have a direct causal link because the entity claims to have generated the effect. This links to what I was saying above regarding evidence and self-proclaimed action on the part of the entity.

I agree that the differences are monumental. Infinite by definition. All I was trying to address was the soundness of calling for empirical evidence as the *sole* indication that an entity exists in the real world. This is usually what an atheist is looking for when they say "prove it."