At "ground zero", in the absence of "hard evidence", it's not a coin toss. There is a baseline.
I really don't know how often or in how many ways this point needs to be made. The starting point in the absence of evidence is to reject the assertion: that which is asserted without evidence may be rejected without evidence". Furthermore, if there is evidence of some sort, it make sense (at least to me) to accept possibilities or probabilities according to the strength of the available evidence. Suppositions, and "parallels", and "what ifs" cannot take the place of evidence.
You are asking me for hard evidence to support a position that I'm not taking, all the while providing no hard evidence for the position that you are taking. I'm sure that you must see the difference in terms of strength of argument, right?
I didn’t comment much on this because essentially I agree.
We will probably disagree on lines of evidence. What is permitted and acceptable to human reasoning and experience.
Belief in God meets baseline requirements in my book. I don’t see absence of evidence. You do. We disagree.
With all due respect, this is as contrary to how you present as a statement could be.
But it's conditional on the (undemonstrated) existence of an (undemonstrated) loving god.
You just have to accept a lack of evidence + some good feelings as equivalent to "not improbable" and then you're all set to go.
Easy-peasy! Millions of people have done it! So can you.
Edit: grammar
“Some good feelings”? That would be a mistaken methodological path for always discerning and locating and/or having and understanding of what is true. I’ve had many instances where feelings have not been accurately telling me the right path. There needs to be a certain sense/amount of intellectual inquiry and thought put into the mix. Analyzing forms of evidence from wherever they might poke up from.
If you’ve relied solely on feelings, as you seem to be intimidating, then I think you are and/or have been mistaken at times in your life. If you’re human anyway. And I know you are. At least you were when I met you.
Religion then is something that I look at with open eyes. Knowing that it is not improbable that a loving God would intervene in the world to reveal His truth.
What?
With all due respect, this is as contrary to how you present as a statement could be.
You left out what came just before that:
Without going into a lot of detail in regards to my cumulative experience and thought over the years, let me say that the ONE over riding possibility/probability that I’ve accepted as an axiom is that, for me, the evidence seems to allow for and even demonstrate the existence of a creator God. All else flows from that. The best I can tell is that the reverse holds true for you, more or less.
So we both have a starting point in our deliberations that then come after our beginning axiom of belief/non belief.
With all due respect, this is as contrary to how you present as a statement could be.
But it's conditional on the (undemonstrated) existence of an (undemonstrated) loving god.
You just have to accept a lack of evidence + some good feelings as equivalent to "not improbable" and then you're all set to go.
Easy-peasy! Millions of people have done it! So can you.
Edit: grammar
My impression of MGs position would be better stated as,
Religion then is something that I look at with a closed mind, knowing that a loving God exists. Knowing God's omnipotent wisdom, I do not need to question when God does not intervene in the world as He knows best what we are ready to receive.
But it's conditional on the (undemonstrated) existence of an (undemonstrated) loving god.
You just have to accept a lack of evidence + some good feelings as equivalent to "not improbable" and then you're all set to go.
Easy-peasy! Millions of people have done it! So can you.
Edit: grammar
“Some good feelings”? That would be a mistaken methodological path for always discerning and locating and/or having and understanding of what is true. I’ve had many instances where feelings have not been accurately telling me the right path. There needs to be a certain sense/amount of intellectual inquiry and thought put into the mix. Analyzing forms of evidence from wherever they might poke up from.
If you’ve relied solely on feelings, as you seem to be intimidating, then I think you are and/or have been mistaken at times in your life. If you’re human anyway. And I know you are. At least you were when I met you.
Regards,
MG
I was suggesting that your "not improbable" was based on "a lack of evidence + some good feelings" - sorry: I thought that was obvious.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
But it's conditional on the (undemonstrated) existence of an (undemonstrated) loving god.
You just have to accept a lack of evidence + some good feelings as equivalent to "not improbable" and then you're all set to go.
Easy-peasy! Millions of people have done it! So can you.
Edit: grammar
My impression of MGs position would be better stated as,
MG: Religion then is something that I look at with a closed mind, knowing that a loving God exists.
Not quite sure what your meaning is behind “religion is something I look at with a closed mind.” Care to elaborate? As it is, if I’m not misunderstanding you, you’ve got it wrong. But I’d like you to flesh this out a bit if you would.
I’m looking at what I think might be an oversimplification in that statement.
“Some good feelings”? That would be a mistaken methodological path for always discerning and locating and/or having and understanding of what is true. I’ve had many instances where feelings have not been accurately telling me the right path. There needs to be a certain sense/amount of intellectual inquiry and thought put into the mix. Analyzing forms of evidence from wherever they might poke up from.
If you’ve relied solely on feelings, as you seem to be intimidating, then I think you are and/or have been mistaken at times in your life. If you’re human anyway. And I know you are. At least you were when I met you.
Regards,
MG
I was suggesting that your "not improbable" was based on "a lack of evidence + some good feelings" - sorry: I thought that was obvious.
But that’s not what I meant/said in the first place. I said it is “not improbable”, meaning that there are lines of evidence. Excuse me, but I took you to be saying that feelings were the determining factor, in a sense, of evidence for God. That there was no evidence.
Maybe we’re talking past each other.
If so, I hope you can now determine where I’m coming from.
I was suggesting that your "not improbable" was based on "a lack of evidence + some good feelings" - sorry: I thought that was obvious.
But that’s not what I meant/said in the first place. I said it is “not improbable”, meaning that there are lines of evidence. Excuse me, but I took you to be saying that feelings were the determining factor, in a sense, of evidence for God. That there was no evidence.
Maybe we’re talking past each other.
If so, I hope you can now determine where I’m coming from.
Regards,
MG
Yes - I concede that I was being too harsh.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
But that’s not what I meant/said in the first place. I said it is “not improbable”, meaning that there are lines of evidence. Excuse me, but I took you to be saying that feelings were the determining factor, in a sense, of evidence for God. That there was no evidence.
Maybe we’re talking past each other.
If so, I hope you can now determine where I’m coming from.
Regards,
MG
Yes - I concede that I was being too harsh.
I don’t know what changed but the tone of the arguments here lately has been so much better than before.
I hope it continues! And thanks for sticking around MG, we need more faithful voices here. Even if we disagree.
But that’s not what I meant/said in the first place. I said it is “not improbable”, meaning that there are lines of evidence. Excuse me, but I took you to be saying that feelings were the determining factor, in a sense, of evidence for God. That there was no evidence.
Maybe we’re talking past each other.
If so, I hope you can now determine where I’m coming from.
Regards,
MG
Yes - I concede that I was being too harsh.
I wasn’t taking it as you being harsh at all. I’ve enjoyed the conversation.