Which Worldview is Supported by Evidence?

[Jester]

Each of us has a worldview.
That is, each of us have a list of beliefs that get us through our day, on which we base our practical and ethical decisions and by which we find some sense of purpose in life.

I have noticed that many claim to have rejected all forms of theism on the grounds that they feel there is little or no evidence supporting it.
Assuming this is the case, which worldview (or weltanschauung) is supported by evidence?
And, of course, what is that evidence?

[I AM ALL I AM]

G'day Jester.

Thank you for the response.

Unless you have a physical impairment to your eyes, then you actually do see the evidence, as it surrounds your physicality. You see the sun, moon and stars. You see trees, plants, animals, fish, birds and people. These are all aspects of Life.

How do I know that my senses are giving me accurate information?
Don't I need to assume that I can trust them without any evidential reason?

Well, you could bend over and touch your toes and I could kick your backside ... that could be one way you could have them tested.

You can "assume" anything you like. Personally, I doubt if it will help you in any way, shape or form.

If you aren't going to believe in your own senses, what are you going to believe in ?

Someone else's ?

As ALL THAT IS is ONE, then there can be no duality, upon which ethics is based ('right' and 'wrong'). Our experience further highlights this through a triune representation. For instance, you are there, I am here, and there is that which surrounds you there and me here.

I don't yet see an ethical guideline here. What exactly does this tell me about, say, whether or not eugenics is morally acceptable?

That's because there isn't one. For what purpose do you require a "guideline" ?

One of the simplest of question that you can ask yourself is, "Does this thought / action / word (or combination thereof) facilitate a re-presentation of Who I Am choosing to BE ?".

Instead of concerning yourself with another's instructions for you to follow (guidelines), why not make your own choices ?

So, does eugenics, in whatever manner you choose to utilise it, facilitate a re-presentation of Who You Are choosing to BE ?

From moment to moment, this is the choice that you continually face. It isn't up to me to make this decision for you, nor is it up to anyone else. It is solely your choice to make, even if it is to follow another's instructions.

If you follow someone else's instructions (their guidelines for you to follow), then all it means is that you are choosing to BE a follower of another's instructions.

Do you really think that the life that you live here has the purpose of you following another's instructions ?

If you do, then choosing to follow another's instructions is perfect to re-present this.

This is basically the premise of having a religious world view ... that is, you follow the instructions of another. In regards to the christian religion, these instructions are apparently written / inspired by the Creator of all Life, though this has never been confirmed by those supplying the apparent instruction book, and the Creator of all Life apparently is unwilling to confirm this as well. Which in essence means, that a christian is following the instructions of a book that they do not know the author of, and are further instructed on exactly how to interpret and follow the 'guidelines' written within it.

Now, if this is Who You Are choosing to BE, then it is perfect.

Personally, I prefer to make my choices based upon Who I Am choosing to BE moment to moment, than BE a follower of another's instructions.

Now, as to a "sense of meaning in life" ... I really am unsure of what you are asking here. Do you mean in my life ? The life I live ? The individuated life that surrounds me ? Or is there some of meaning ?

Do you have a sense that your life is something good?
Do you feel that, when the human race is extinct and all matter ceases to exist in any recognizable form, things will have been any better because you were once alive?

A "sense" as in sensory perception ?

Both 'good' and 'bad' are subjective choices. It is also a duality. As it states in my signature, when paired opposites defines your beliefs, your beliefs will imprison you.

Personally, I am free of another's subjective labelling of what is 'good' and what is 'bad'. It has no relevance to me apart from describing that they are choosing to be imprisoned by their belief in dualities.

Here's something that I wrote around 10 years ago now when I was contemplating these concepts and was working out my own world view / belief structure ...


[center]BELIEF IS ALL


ALL THOUGHTS, WORDS AND ACTIONS LEAD FROM YOUR BELIEF.


IF YOUR BELIEF IS OPPOSED TO ANYTHING, THEN YOU WILL BE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND AND UNABLE TO SEE THAT WHICH YOU ARE OPPOSED TO.


YOUR BELIEF ALLOWS YOU TO UNDERSTAND AND SEE THAT WHICH YOU BELIEVE IN HERE AND NOW WITHIN THE PHYSICAL.


THEREFORE, BELIEVING WILL ALLOW YOU TO SEE, AND THAT WHICH YOU SEE IS A CONFIRMATION OF WHAT IT IS THAT YOU BELIEVE.


TO MASTER YOURSELF, OR EXPERIENCE SELF-MASTERY, YOU WILL REQUIRE A BELIEF THAT ENCOMPASSES ALL THAT IS.


THE BELIEF THAT ALLOWS YOU TO ENCOMPASS ALL THAT IS AND THEREFORE UNDERSTAND AND SEE ALL THAT IS, IS THE BELIEF THAT ALL IS POSSIBLE.


AS ALL THAT IS IS ALREADY HERE WITHIN ITS ENTIRETY, IT BECOMES YOUR CHOICE TO ACKNOWLEDGE ALL THAT IS AND ACCEPT THAT YOU ARE AN INDIVIDUAL ASPECT OF ALL THAT IS.


TO ACKNOWLEDGE IS TO RECOGNISE, OR RE-COGNISE, THAT IS, ONCE AGAIN EXPERIENCE KNOWING.


TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU ARE AN INDIVIDUAL ASPECT OF ALL THAT IS, IS TO ACCEPT YOUR TRUE SELF, THE INFINITE BEING THAT YOU TRULY ARE.


WHAT YOU ARE BEING, YOU EXPERIENCE, AND IT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE OF BEING YOURSELF THAT YOU ARE HERE FOR.


THEREFORE, WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO BE WILL DETERMINE YOUR EXPERIENCE, AND ONLY THROUGH YOUR EXPERIENCE CAN YOU EXPRESS SELF-MASTERY WITHIN THE PHYSICAL.[/center]


Hopefully this goes towards recognising that this world view cannot be comprehended from a religious mindset. There is no one that you have to 'please', no one that you have to 'worship', 'adore', nor anyone that you 'have to do something for'.

This is about self-determination. You choose Who You Are Being.

At the point that you typed the questions, you chose to re-present yourself from your physicality, that is, you asked as if you and I are the body. The body is a tool that is utilised to re-present Who I Am.

The cells that make up the totality of the body are replaced through a 7 year cycle. The body you now have (if 7 years have passed since birth ) is not the body that you were born with. So how can you be your body ?

If you are not the body, then how can you assume that Who You Are ceases to exist when the body reforms (what is commonly called 'dies') ?

Do you have experiential knowledge of what happens when your body 'dies' ?

Do you notice that your thoughts, shown in the questions that you ask, show me some of the premises of your beliefs ?

Einstein apparently stated, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.", and, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.".

I mention this because you will not comprehend this world view from a religious mind set. Your questions appear to be attempting to 'fit' this world view onto the 'template' that is your religious world view.

From this world view, you give meaning to your life.

There is no external 'God', no set of instructions / guidelines.

It's all a choice ... self-determination.

[100%atheist]

That is true, but there are implications that logically follow from our respective starting points. Since the assumptions of atheism inevitably lead to incoherence, and since the same is not true for theism, it follows that theism is the rationally preferable starting point.

Oops. As an atheist, I do NOT assume anything as a starting point that leads to my atheism. I simply don't know what assumptions are you talking about. But your conclusions are quite telling...

[EduChris]

...I fail to understand how "I do not believe in god" brings with it incoherent assumptions whereas "I believe in god" does not...

Non-theism posits that there is no adequate warrant for believing theism to be true. So the non-theist is faced with the reality that she is either meaningless stardust, or else she is something more. But since meaningless stardust is really in no position to claim that logic and reason are any more likely to lead to truth than anything else, this option is hardly ever chosen. Most non-theists do believe that they are something more than meaningless stardust--they assume this on faith. However, there is no non-circular scientific evidence to suggest that we are anything more than meaningless stardust. So the non-theist must either take it on faith that science will one day demonstrate conclusively either that she is meaningless stardust, or that science will one day demonstrate how she might be something more.

Now suppose science were someday able to demonstrate conclusively that we are nothing but meaningless stardust. This amounts to incoherence because in this case meaningless stardust will have reasoned itself into a position which vacates the reasoning process by which its conclusion was reached.

So to avoid this incoherence, the non-theist must take on faith that she is something more than meaningless stardust--she must take it on faith that her powers of logic and reason have some sort of validity. Furthermore, she must take on faith that science may one day provide some supporting evidence for her ineradicable belief that she is something more than meaningless stardust--and she must also believe that it is more likely than not that this evidence will not point to Deity (because to think otherwise would be to admit that theism is a warranted belief after all).

But if our reason and logic are validated by scientific evidence as interpreted by reason and logic (apart from any deity) this will simply entail the circularity of reason and logic validating itself.

So non-theism is either self-referentially incoherent, or else it is hopelessly circular. Therefore, theism remains the only viable option, and as such it is a warranted belief.

[Woland]

EduChris,

If this forum didn't have guidelines about addressing arguments (which you consistently refuse to do under various pretenses, in several threads), I'd just dismiss you for your arrogant and ignorant behavior. Even you should know that these strawmen are ridiculous and insult the intelligence of the non-theists here.

...I fail to understand how "I do not believe in god" brings with it incoherent assumptions whereas "I believe in god" does not...

Non-theism posits that there is no adequate warrant for believing theism to be true. So the non-theist is faced with the reality that she is either meaningless stardust, or else she is something more.

Attempt to weasel in a theistic definition of the word "meaning" implying "dictated meaning" noted. Non-theists don't need to have an imaginary friend that tells them how to find meaning in their lives.

But since meaningless stardust is really in no position to claim that logic and reason are any more likely to lead to truth than anything else, this option is hardly ever chosen.

Nonsense.

Logic and reason have PROVEN themselves to be invaluable, useful tools in discovering how the universe works and increasing our quality of life.

Denying this would be utterly laughable.

Most non-theists do believe that they are something more than meaningless stardust--they assume this on faith.

Please provide evidence...meh nevermind, I know that you won't. EVERYONE knows that you just keep making these baseless assertions as if they meant something. It's getting tiring.

In my experience, non-theists do NOT think that they are anything else than stardust - but it doesn't mean that they don't, can't or shouldn't experience meaning in their lives, or that this would be incoherent with anything else than ARROGANT Christian apologist assumptions.

However, there is no non-circular scientific evidence to suggest that we are anything more than meaningless stardust.

"There is no evidence that there is no God, therefore since there is no evidence that there is no objective, dictated meaning to things, this somehow implies that my position is somehow validated."

... Sure it does. Just like the fact that there is no evidence to support the notion that unicorns are imaginary validates the position of people who believe they exist...

Like the people who wrote the Bible.

So the non-theist must either take it on faith that science will one day demonstrate conclusively either that she is meaningless stardust, or that science will one day demonstrate how she might be something more.

The non-theist must not take anything on faith. It's not a complicated principle. What else need be said here?

Now suppose science were someday able to demonstrate conclusively that we are nothing but meaningless stardust. This amounts to incoherence because in this case meaningless stardust will have reasoned itself into a position which vacates the reasoning process by which its conclusion was reached.

Um...NO.

Biologically organized stardust piles (without believing in a supposedly "dictated" meaning) will keep experiencing subjective meaning in things and will find ways to enjoy their time on Earth.

The incoherence is nowhere else than in your own mind.

So to avoid this incoherence, the non-theist must take on faith that she is something more than meaningless stardust--she must take it on faith that her powers of logic and reason have some sort of validity.

They've been shown to have plenty of validity and usefulness. Only religious solipsists and sophists would even attempt to deny this.

Furthermore, she must take on faith that science may one day provide some supporting evidence for her ineradicable belief that she is something more than meaningless stardust--and she must also believe that it is more likely than not that this evidence will not point to Deity (because to think otherwise would be to admit that theism is a warranted belief after all).

That's just nonsense. Until Christians and personal god theists have any relevant evidence for their extravagant and contradictory claims, the only reasonable position will remain that of waiting until relevant evidence can be provided.

So non-theism is either self-referentially incoherent, or else it is hopelessly circular. Therefore, theism remains the only viable option, and as such it is a warranted belief.

It's seriously astounding that you think you've shown this. You keep repeating things like these in many threads, but you've never shown such a thing at all. You just keep making baseless assertions, fallacious analogies and irrelevant though experiments and think that these somehow prove your points. I wouldn't even bring this up if you dared to at least properly address the arguments against your position.

Your excuses and evasive tactics are transparent, and they do not reflect well on your position.

-Woland

[100%atheist]

So to avoid this incoherence, the non-theist must take on faith that she is something more than meaningless stardust--she must take it on faith that her powers of logic and reason have some sort of validity. Furthermore, she must take on faith that science may one day provide some supporting evidence for her ineradicable belief that she is something more than meaningless stardust--and she must also believe that it is more likely than not that this evidence will not point to Deity (because to think otherwise would be to admit that theism is a warranted belief after all).

But if our reason and logic are validated by scientific evidence as interpreted by reason and logic (apart from any deity) this will simply entail the circularity of reason and logic validating itself.

So non-theism is either self-referentially incoherent, or else it is hopelessly circular. Therefore, theism remains the only viable option, and as such it is a warranted belief.

I see you don't really in a mood to discuss anything. So instead of replying and arguing I'd better ask you a question that I am trying to get resolved for myself for quite a while.

A theist believes that there is a deity that created the world and humans. If this general picture is correct, in my opinion life has no meaning because we were designed by some intelligent being who decided to use us in his game. Do you really think there is any possible meaning in playing dice with deity the Creator?

Edit: I mean that following your logic, a theist must have a faith that she/he can somehow outscore the deity to avoid being a meaningless stardust in the deity's doll game.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Which worldview is supported by evidence.

All of 'em.

Standards regarding what constitutes valid evidence are as varied as there are humans, and all the turtles if they weighed in on the matter.

I have noticed that many claim to have rejected all forms of theism on the grounds that they feel there is little or no evidence supporting it.
Assuming this is the case, which worldview (or weltanschauung) is supported by evidence?
And, of course, what is that evidence?

It's not so much that I think I have a word view superior to religious belief, but that it fails to answer any serious questions I have.

For me it is the relative uselessness with which religious belief solves my problems that precludes my particular participation in that program. God might care and all, but all His care doesn't pay the analytical bills.

Whether through poor PR, or through the dooficity I have with some sadness come to accept will remain with me the rest of my born days, religious appeals have struck me intuitively as magical, wishful thinking. Instinct may not always be correct, but I'm not gonna forget it just may be correct from time to time.

That I've found so many theists who I consider so intelligent laughs at the conviction I have that religious beliefs are sociopsychological relics. This I admit. That particular problem doesn't dispel my deeply held conviction that religious belief is better explained through human understanding, not godly. And here we'll just say 'm', in case there was a grammar violation there back that mighta got folks upset.

When I want to know what cures me, I seek a doctor.
When I want to place a bet on a game, I seek a bookie.
When I want to dream of fantastical lands in far off places where good and evil engage in epic battle, you've got five minutes to show the female breast, or an explosion, or I'm changing the channel.

Science may never solve our philosophical questions.

But it sure helps out where it can on a bunch of others.

[Question Everything]

So the non-theist is faced with the reality that she is either meaningless stardust, or else she is something more. But since meaningless stardust is really in no position to claim that logic and reason are any more likely to lead to truth than anything else, this option is hardly ever chosen. Most non-theists do believe that they are something more than meaningless stardust--they assume this on faith. However, there is no non-circular scientific evidence to suggest that we are anything more than meaningless stardust. So the non-theist must either take it on faith that science will one day demonstrate conclusively either that she is meaningless stardust, or that science will one day demonstrate how she might be something more.

Now suppose science were someday able to demonstrate conclusively that we are nothing but meaningless stardust. This amounts to incoherence because in this case meaningless stardust will have reasoned itself into a position which vacates the reasoning process by which its conclusion was reached.

So to avoid this incoherence, the non-theist must take on faith that she is something more than meaningless stardust--she must take it on faith that her powers of logic and reason have some sort of validity. Furthermore, she must take on faith that science may one day provide some supporting evidence for her ineradicable belief that she is something more than meaningless stardust--and she must also believe that it is more likely than not that this evidence will not point to Deity (because to think otherwise would be to admit that theism is a warranted belief after all).

But if our reason and logic are validated by scientific evidence as interpreted by reason and logic (apart from any deity) this will simply entail the circularity of reason and logic validating itself.

So non-theism is either self-referentially incoherent, or else it is hopelessly circular. Therefore, theism remains the only viable option, and as such it is a warranted belief.

I believe that I answered that line of reasoning with this post. Anybody care to debate it?

[Filthy Tugboat]

...I fail to understand how "I do not believe in god" brings with it incoherent assumptions whereas "I believe in god" does not...

Non-theism posits that there is no adequate warrant for believing theism to be true. So the non-theist is faced with the reality that she is either meaningless stardust, or else she is something more.

You might have to clarify "meaningless stardust" for me. When posting what "meaningless stardust" actually means(lol?) can you show me what the "something more" is in relation to the "meaningless stardust"?

But since meaningless stardust is really in no position to claim that logic and reason are any more likely to lead to truth than anything else, this option is hardly ever chosen.

Feel free to add the response to this to the definition of "meaningless stardust". Why is "meaningless stardust" in no position to claim that logic and reason are more likely to lead to truth than anything else?

Most non-theists do believe that they are something more than meaningless stardust--they assume this on faith. However, there is no non-circular scientific evidence to suggest that we are anything more than meaningless stardust. So the non-theist must either take it on faith that science will one day demonstrate conclusively either that she is meaningless stardust, or that science will one day demonstrate how she might be something more.

Now suppose science were someday able to demonstrate conclusively that we are nothing but meaningless stardust. This amounts to incoherence because in this case meaningless stardust will have reasoned itself into a position which vacates the reasoning process by which its conclusion was reached.

So to avoid this incoherence, the non-theist must take on faith that she is something more than meaningless stardust--she must take it on faith that her powers of logic and reason have some sort of validity. Furthermore, she must take on faith that science may one day provide some supporting evidence for her ineradicable belief that she is something more than meaningless stardust--and she must also believe that it is more likely than not that this evidence will not point to Deity (because to think otherwise would be to admit that theism is a warranted belief after all).

I'll need clarification before I respond to this.

But if our reason and logic are validated by scientific evidence as interpreted by reason and logic (apart from any deity) this will simply entail the circularity of reason and logic validating itself.

Reason and logic is not validated at all, it is just the best method we know to achieve what we want.

So non-theism is either self-referentially incoherent, or else it is hopelessly circular. Therefore, theism remains the only viable option, and as such it is a warranted belief.

Even if this was an accurate conclusion, you would need to analyze theism before concluding that it is a more viable option. I gather that you have done that but if you are looking to prove your case we have to see this analysis.

[Jester]

G'day Jester.

Thank you for the response.

Same to you!

Well, you could bend over and touch your toes and I could kick your backside ... that could be one way you could have them tested.

You can "assume" anything you like. Personally, I doubt if it will help you in any way, shape or form.

If you aren't going to believe in your own senses, what are you going to believe in ?

Someone else's ?

Personally, I do tend to trust my senses.
However, the test you suggest is not actually valid. It is using one's senses in order to test them. Senses cannot test themselves.

I find your question here very pertinent, actually. People trust their senses, not because there really is a logical reason for doing so, but because we don't really see another option. This is what many would call a faith assumption.

I don't yet see an ethical guideline here. What exactly does this tell me about, say, whether or not eugenics is morally acceptable?

That's because there isn't one. For what purpose do you require a "guideline" ?

One of the simplest of question that you can ask yourself is, "Does this thought / action / word (or combination thereof) facilitate a re-presentation of Who I Am choosing to BE ?".

Instead of concerning yourself with another's instructions for you to follow (guidelines), why not make your own choices ?

So, does eugenics, in whatever manner you choose to utilise it, facilitate a re-presentation of Who You Are choosing to BE ?

From moment to moment, this is the choice that you continually face. It isn't up to me to make this decision for you, nor is it up to anyone else. It is solely your choice to make, even if it is to follow another's instructions.

I agree that we each have a choice, but you seem here to be arguing nihilism.
That is fine, if you actually don't believe in any sense of ethics, but I find that most - even most who claim to be nihilists - would object to a person, say, killing innocent children.
If it is merely a matter of each of us making a choice, however, that should not be a problem.

This is basically the premise of having a religious world view ... that is, you follow the instructions of another. In regards to the christian religion, these instructions are apparently written / inspired by the Creator of all Life, though this has never been confirmed by those supplying the apparent instruction book, and the Creator of all Life apparently is unwilling to confirm this as well. Which in essence means, that a christian is following the instructions of a book that they do not know the author of, and are further instructed on exactly how to interpret and follow the 'guidelines' written within it.

This is not a terribly accurate summary of the Christian concept of ethics.
First, it is based in the idea of ethics as objective fact, not as following the ideas of someone else.
And second, whatever is or isn't "confirmed" regarding this concept, I've not yet received any confirmation of either the existence of the physical universe or the idea that there are no objective ethics, though both of these positions have been taken. As such, I see no reason to criticize any lack of confirmation you may find in other worldviews.

Now, as to a "sense of meaning in life" ... I really am unsure of what you are asking here. Do you mean in my life ? The life I live ? The individuated life that surrounds me ? Or is there some of meaning ?

Do you have a sense that your life is something good?
Do you feel that, when the human race is extinct and all matter ceases to exist in any recognizable form, things will have been any better because you were once alive?

A "sense" as in sensory perception ?

Both 'good' and 'bad' are subjective choices. It is also a duality. As it states in my signature, when paired opposites defines your beliefs, your beliefs will imprison you.

I'm aware that this is your position, but I've received no support for the idea that these things are simply subjective. Nor am I convinced of the truth of your signature line. It seems to me that I can state almost any idea either in terms of paired opposites (such as stating your view in terms of "independence versus confomity"), or in some other way. I don't, as of yet, find any wisdom in it.

Personally, I am free of another's subjective labelling of what is 'good' and what is 'bad'. It has no relevance to me apart from describing that they are choosing to be imprisoned by their belief in dualities.

Here's something that I wrote around 10 years ago now when I was contemplating these concepts and was working out my own world view / belief structure ...

I did read your claims. It actually seemed odd to me that the idea that one should be believing toward all possibility was, if I understood correctly, being used to argue that we shouldn't accept anything that is not physical.
Thus far, I've seen no evidence at all that non-physical things do not exist.

Hopefully this goes towards recognising that this world view cannot be comprehended from a religious mindset. There is no one that you have to 'please', no one that you have to 'worship', 'adore', nor anyone that you 'have to do something for'.

I'm inclined to believe that no worldview can be fully comprehended from any contrary worldview.

If you are not the body, then how can you assume that Who You Are ceases to exist when the body reforms (what is commonly called 'dies') ?

Personally, I do not assume this.

Do you notice that your thoughts, shown in the questions that you ask, show me some of the premises of your beliefs ?

Einstein apparently stated, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.", and, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.".

I agree, but don't see how this is analogous to my questions.

I mention this because you will not comprehend this world view from a religious mind set. Your questions appear to be attempting to 'fit' this world view onto the 'template' that is your religious world view.

This seems to be the secular version of "you won't understand why God exists until you believe in him".
Yes, it is true that no worldview will really be deeply understood from outside it. This, however, does not apply more fully to a secular weltanshauung than to a religious one.

From this world view, you give meaning to your life.

There is no external 'God', no set of instructions / guidelines.

It's all a choice ... self-determination.

This, I clearly do not understand. I can understand that self-determination can make someone feel like life is meaningful, but I don't see why it gives any actual meaning to one's life.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Each of us has a worldview.
That is, each of us have a list of beliefs that get us through our day, on which we base our practical and ethical decisions and by which we find some sense of purpose in life.

I have noticed that many claim to have rejected all forms of theism on the grounds that they feel there is little or no evidence supporting it.
Assuming this is the case, which worldview (or weltanschauung) is supported by evidence?
And, of course, what is that evidence?

For the purpose of the post, I will discuss theism in comparison to non-theism as each are separate worldviews with practically opposite notions. The reason I'm making this a comparison is due to the fact that we are finding which worldview is [best] supported y evidence. If you object to my concept of one of the questions, please inform me

I would also like to clarify an issue concerning unjustified claims within a worldview. If a worldview is unevidenced does that negate from it's position as to standards of evidence. Non-theism being a neutral position that has no claim associated to it also has no evidence nor any requirement for evidence. Comparing this to a worldview that presents claims (such as theism) could provide problems in the comparison. It basically comes down to Pascal's wager:

Non-theism has no evidence to support it.(Neutral)
Theism may or may not have evidence supporting it. (Neutral or positive)
Theism either has evidence or has no evidence supporting it.(Neutral or positive)
Theism is the better worldview because it has the possibility of supporting evidence while we know that non-theism has none.(conclusion)

In the same sense that:

Non-theism holds no promise of a positive afterlife. (Neutral)
Theism promises a positive afterlife if you adopt the worldview.(Neutral (if wrong) or positive)
Theism is either right or it is wrong.(neutral or positive)
Theism is the better worldview because it has the possibility of a positive afterlife while we know that non-theism has none.(conclusion)

This does not show one to be superior to the other but it is basically an example of 'hedging your bets'. Basically, if there is no evidence for the theistic worldview does this place it in a position lower than non-theism or simply on par?

But carrying on to the main point of my post.

I know you've gone through the concept that the physical universe has no objective evidence supporting it's existence and I agree but I have to clarify as to whether both non-theism and theism do believe the physical universe exists? I personally think they do, mostly for lack of a better idea. So if we decide to then compare theism and non-theism and the evidence supporting the worldviews we can cancel out the concept of the physical universe not being a reality simply because it is shared by both of the worldviews we are comparing. So now we are down to the basic of which has more evidence in support of it's case, non-theism being the lack of belief in theism and as far as I'm aware most non-theists extend this to the entire supernatural realm but I'm sure there are exceptions. Theism is the belief in a creator of the physical universe that interacts with the physical universe. Now it's down to whether or not theisms claims are justified with evidence.

Is this basically what the comparison comes down to or is there concepts I have not included?