Youth is wasted on the young.

Intelligence is wasted on the old.

The argument "I can't see it, so it isn't there" is a rather silly argument. and is usually met with the response "You haven't seen (Name of thing) so, is that not real too."

It's usually a theist who has the second sentence here (A logical response too), usually that sentence is met with another response.

Unless it's a creationist.
The very same argument that probably annoys some theists, tends to be (ab)used by creationists.

"You've never seen evolution, so how can you know it's true?"

Of course they never seen the creation, so how can they know it's true?

I have an idea.
When arguing a creationist, and evolution gets brought up.
There is a chance the creationist will throw in a strawmanned version of evolution. Instead of using the old "That's not evolution" or, "Evolution doesn't work that way."

Just reply "I thought we were talking about evolution, but apparently you decided to change the subject."

I demonstrate the numerous flaws in TAG here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag

However, a poster named "Prof" from the old Infidelguy site raises yet more problems with TAG. His original posts can be found here:

http://www.infidelguy.com/forumarchives/modules.php?name=Boards&file=viewtopic&t=21132&highlight=

Basically, Presuppers make these additional errors:

1) They fail to grasp that the assumption of uniformity of nature is considered to be only a necessary, not sufficient justification for induction, and thus the UON is not used as a justification for induction in the first place.

The following is based on a brief essay by Keith Parsons

To say that I am within my 'epistemic rights' to hold to a claim, I am saying that I violate no epistemic responsibilities or obligations in believing in my claim. (Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand.) An epistemic obligation is an intellectual responsibility with respect to the formation of, or holding to, my beliefs.

The basic obligations would include

1) Not forming a belief dishonestly, through self deception.

2) Not misrepresenting how we can to hold a belief (claiming a belief came through reason, when in fact it was inculcated into us in infancy, and merely verified afterwards)

Job 11:7-9

"Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens—what can you do? They are deeper than the depths of the grave [a] —what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea.

Previously, I've shown that references to the supernatural are necessarily incoherent:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag

It is equally true that attempts to provide an ontology for 'god' necessarily lead to
incoherence - any attempt to define something in a wholly negative sense, devoid of a universe of discourse, leads to incoherence.   Additionally, any attempt to define an entity with a set of contradictory or self exclusionary concepts leads to incoherence.  Attempts to define 'god' often commit both existential errors.

Attempts to provide secondary attributes to 'god' (i.e., positive attributes such as 'the creator of the universe) lead to a second problem: external contradiction.  The attempt leads to a set of attributes that are impossible to reconcile with each other, or impossible to reconcile with accepted features of our universe.

Hermeneutics: "The science and methodology of interpretation, especially of scriptural text."

All interpretations are biased. This cannot be avoided. In order to "interpret" you must work from a preexisting set of assumptions, a paradigm for the interpretation - i.e the guiding framework that helps you decide what you are going to make the book say. You're literally reworking whatever appears in front of you, to fit into some preexisting scheme.

Notice that in the case of religious dogma that this means that the reader must choose what is wrong, what is right, and what each passage means based on some interpretive standard, indicating that the reader is in fact choosing what is moral. It is the reader who decides what is right, what is wrong, what is intended, what is moral, what is just, what is sin, what is fact, what is fiction. (Presuppostionalists may balk at this claim, but merely begging the question that a 'god' provides us with this knowledge is not a adequate rebuttal.)