And how are we able to attribute alleged traces of a divine entity's actions in the natural world to a divine entity? It might help to consider the actions of a magician here. Do we consider his magic tricks to be real or a product of our own perceptional quirks?

As I said, if this entity is real, then it can provide the proof of its credentials.

If one wishes to prove something, then one has the responsibilty to provide the proof for it.

This is another logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance.

Besides the technicality that divinity can't really prove its own existence (that will always end up in circles), the credentials of divinity have no more credence than the credentials of a magic trick.

Say that you witness a fellow who puts a lady in a box and cuts her in two halves. You're certain that what your eyes tell you is a total reflection of reality. Now there are at least three scenarios. One is that the lady is actually cut in two halves. The magician, it turns out, is not a magician but a brutal serial killer. The other scenario is that the magician has magical powers and the third is of course that, despite your certainty of the contrary, your senses and mind are playing tricks on you.

The first scenario is trivial. The other two, however, are truly Begging The Question. If the magician is claimed to have magical powers, it can always be said that he doesn't and that your mind is playing tricks on you. Similarly, if your mind is claimed to play tricks on you, it can always be said that it doesn't because the magician has true magical powers.

There is no way there can ever be evidence of the magical powers of the magician, no matter how many traces or "credentials" he leaves behind. Since it thus can't be evidential, it has to be taken on faith.

Divinity faces the exact same dilemma.

Sure. It's appeal to authority, appeal to ignorance, the Burden of Proof, a Red Herring and probably some other fallacies as well. But it works, simply because it deals with ideas for which there are no logical boundaries.

If it (appeal to ignorance) worked, then it(appeal to ignorance)would be proof of these claims. It (appeal to ignorance) is not proof of these claims. Therefore, it (appeal to ignorance) doesn't work.

Either the entity exists or the entity doesn't exist. You want to discuss criteria for proof.

Discussing criteria for proof could be another topic.

And we're back at the beginning it seems. Claims that must solely rely on the products of the mind for truth or falsehood (even though they are claims about something outside the mind) are true or false if the mind says so.

"Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." - David Hume

I'm under no such burden to show 'real world' examples, though if I had more knowledge of contemporary physics I could likely use electron orbitals as a way to show that the concept of identity appears fuzzy in these cases. Why do you automatically assume that logic applies to the world?

No one has ever successfully been able to synthesize knowledge of fact (the world) and knowledge of consequences (logic) after people started examining the Greek philosophers' assumptions. The closest anyone came was Kant, and not only was his synthesis radically qualified in terms of just how much of the world logic applied to, it was also a failure.

Yup. Such truths aren't worth much, except, obviously, to those who are compelled by them.

OK.
I assume we begin with some notion as to what this hypothetical "god" we're trying to provide evidence for is like (what qualities it has); we can't really look for evidence for something if we haven't defined, at least to some extent, what that something is. Note that we aren't assuming this thing exists, we're just defining what we mean we say "god".
Taking into account our existing knowledge base and our limited powers of observation, we could go about trying to figure out what evidence should exist if something having the qualities we ascribe to our "god" did exist. We'd develop statements like "If a think having the qualities of god exists, we should observe ABC when we XYZ."
Then we would XYZ and see if ABC was observed. If it is, we have some evidence for the existence of our "god." NOT, I hasten to emphasize conclusive evidence or even sufficient, but some evidence. We could then begin the whole process of considering other explanations for that evidence.

It's really a process we could use in looking for evidence for anything. If, for example, I think there are mice in my house, I might say to myself: "Mice chew up electrical cables." (thus defining a quality of a mouse).
I might then think: "If there are mice in my home, I should observed chewed up electrical cables when I look behind my computer." (thus defining the evidence to look for)
If I look behind my computer and observe chewed up electrical cables, then I have some evidence for the existence of mice in my home. It is not conclusive evidence (for example, I could have rats instead of mice), but it is evidence none-the-less.

Alternatively, if I think there is a magnet hidden in a shoe-box, I will recognize that by "magnet" I mean (amongst other things) an object that attracts iron to itself. I might then state that, "If there is a magnet in this shoe-box, when I place an iron spoon near the box I should observe the spoon moving toward the box." If I do in fact observe the spoon move toward the box, I have some evidence that a magnet exists in that shoe-box.

But perhaps you'd prefer a more "divine" example
"Zeus shoots lightening bolts at people who curse his name." (a quality of my hypothetical Zeus)
"If Zeus exists, then when someone curses his name I should observe lightning bolts hitting them." (some evidence to look for)
If, the next time I see someone curse Zeus I then see lightning rain down upon them from on high, I have some evidence for the existence of Zeus.

[Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this - I'm in the middle of writing final papers for the semester and time has become rather precious ]

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

My apologies if I put words in your mouth.

Including Zeus is not more an a priori than including Bob Hope or (from my last post) mice. You can't look for evidence for something unless you have some notion what that hypothetical something is like. But I feel like I'm misunderstanding you here.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

No (cf. following replies)

In defining the qualities of a mouse, what is your reference? Could it be that a mouse has been produced already so that you are able to describe the qualities of a mouse from actual practical experience? Or are you inferring some qualities from an animal that has never been produced but is perhaps contained in some folklore?

Would it be correct for me to assume that little green leprechauns chew up electrical cables (thus defining the quality of a leprechaun) and say that if I observe chewed up cables when I look behind my computer (thus defining the evidence to look for) then I have evidence of leprechauns in my home?

In defining the qualities of a magnet, what is your reference? Could it be that a magnet has been produced already so that you are able to describe the qualities of a magnet from actual practical experience? Or are you inferring some qualities from an object that has never been produced but is perhaps contained in some folklore?

Would it be correct for me to assume that Mjollnir (that's Thor's Hammer) attracts iron to itself, then state that "If Mjollnir is in this shoe-box, when I place an iron spoon near the box I should observe the spoon moving toward the box"? If I do in fact observe the spoon move toward the box, do I have some evidence that Mjollnir exists in that shoe-box?

In defining the qualities of Zeus, what is your reference? Could it be that a creature like Zeus has been produced already so that you are able to describe the qualities of such a creature from actual practical experience? Or are you inferring some qualities from a creature that has never been produced but is perhaps contained in some folklore?

If not then it'll be a darn good idea to start there before going any further. And, as you go along obtaining evidence of the divine Zeus creature, please keep us informed of your progress.

Dilettante, I appreciate you taking time to respond in this hectic period of your life (one could sort of wish you hadn't, though). The sentence "If Zeus exists, then when someone curses his name I should observe lightning bolts hitting them." is utterly useless (and I do mean completely void of any use in this context). I could just as well have said that if pink frogs with antlers and big boops exist, then when someone curses Zeus' name I should observe lightning bolts hitting them.

The existence of Bob Hope must initially be taken on faith, you mean? Ok, I have no problem with that. However, the claim is that Bob Hope is human and those things we don't really have to take on faith.

Now, what is Zeus?

What are the specific claims?

Well, regarding Bob Hope I think it was that he was the first President of USA. Regarding Zeus, it was that he could cast lightning bolts. Or something like that. Dilettante can correct it if needed.

Rather irrelevant claims, really, before it's established that Bob Hope and Zeus, respectively, can be determined to exist or to have existed. As it can a mouse and a magnet.