What does that mean? — andrewk

It means that correlation doesn't imply causation.

Are you saying that anybody that believes they have been in communication with god is 'crazy' (whatever that means)? — andrewk

I don't know that about everyone, and I don't know that about anyone with certainty. But there is reason to suspect it, in a sense, yes. And in a similar sense to that in which you'd call a tin foil hatter crazy. Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about here and haven't ever done this sort of thing or thought in that sort of way about these sorts of people, because I don't buy that for a second. It's a red flag.

Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about here and haven't ever done this sort of thing or thought in that sort of way about these sorts of people, because I don't buy that for a second. — Sapientia

Really?

Then it appears there's no hope of my persuading you towards a more open-minded view, since you know more about what I think than I do.

really do not think that Jesus ever claimed to be Son of God. To my knowledge, he referred to himself as Son of Man. — Metaphysician Undercover

There's a long tradition in rabbinical teaching of the teacher asking questions rather than providing answers or statements. Jesus eludes to the idea of being the son of God. He also refers to his "father in heaven" in the context of describing God. So these were things that were understood at the time, but the significance of Jesus' approach to teaching gets lost to history pretty often.

Really?

Then it appears there's no hope of my persuading you towards a more open-minded view, since you know more about what I think than I do. — andrewk

Yes, really.

There's being open-minded and there's being open-minded to the point that it clashes with good sense. I'm not willing to do the latter. I've made sufficient qualifications along the way, I'd say.

There's being open-minded and there's being open-minded to the point that it clashes with good sense. — Sapientia

"Good sense" according to whose assessment?

I am a theist but not in a traditional sense. I think most all bible and most religions are bogus. Buddhism being somewhat of an exception for me. If you talk to me about burning bushes - parting seas - walking on water - curing the blind – I don’t buy it. I think most bibles have “some” wisdom – but none of them is the word of God. In fact I do not think God talks directly to man – ever. I do not think we are very significant to God. No more than an ameba is significant to me – probably less.

What I see is an infinite universe – never stops. Actually I don’t see it – I just imagine it is infinite – and – I am not quite sure what infinite means. What I know is the universe is big. Like the number just keeps doubling and never stops. What I know is that I am trapped on little speck of dust called Earth. I don’t think the Earth means very much to God. There must be trillions upon trillions – bazillions other planets – better than the Earth. Why not if the universe is truly infinite?

I am not for sure – but – I speculate that God is a mad scientist. “It” has as many experiments going as there grains of sand. No, make that all of the electrons on this planet. And this planet is represented as just one of those electrons. How big/important does that make us? Not very. When a big star goes supernova – it can destroy an entire galaxy. There may be a trillion planets in that galaxy better than the Earth – and – they may be inhabited with beings much more advanced than us. I think probability statistics supports some facsimile of this thesis. Better planets and beings are being destroyed every day. Remember I said God was a mad scientist. I might have to change that to pyromaniac.

My point is that we are not very significant in the universe and to God. However, we have a very nice planet – it might be second or third rate – but – still very nice. Nice air – nice sun – nice water – plants – animals – trees – I don’t like all the bugs. What can you do – you take what you get. You know what else I like about this planet? My consciousness – I am not so sure about yours – but mine is the best. I also have love – the greatest of emotions.

So when I add up all these things – I feel very lucky – too lucky. I was born and raised in New York and I don’t believe in luck. Nobody gives you anything for nothing. The story is just too good to be true. I am a skeptic and I want an explanation for the overwhelming good fortune. I have heard the atheist explanation for the ways things are, ad nauseam, and it sounds hollow. I hear religious explanations and it makes me want to puke. So, what’s a guy to do?

I cannot get a satisfactory answer from reason or superstition. So I take a little of both and add a third element – emotion. I see organization and balance (a kind of equation) in my world and I ask – how did this happen? This is the reason part. Then I ask – how does this “equation” get set in motion and maintained? I ask myself – “Is God possible?” This is the superstition part. Then I use the third element – emotion – I ask – what works best with my emotions? My answer is God did it all. I don’t know how, why, where or when. God does not talk to me or anyone else. Religion is a con. However, I hear, see, feel, taste and touch the “equation” that God set in motion – every moment. I cannot prove it – but I can feel it. Atheists cannot disprove it. I cannot disprove atheism – in fact I don’t want to. I listen to Jiminy Cricket – “Let your conscience be your guide”.

I realize it is just a premise – but it is a good working hypothesis for me. I like it better than the atheist position because that is emotionally hollow. I am full of emotion and I don’t want to feel stranded. Atheism is just another premise. Choose your poison.

According to the assessment of I, Sapientia, the wise old owl, the goddess of wisdom. :D

So, it's not "good" sense we're speaking about here, but merely your sense, O Goddess? :P

That's ambiguous. What do you mean by that? — Sapientia

All our knowledge of anything is shown from within. — TheWillowOfDarkness

OK, suppose we remove this distinction then, between what is internal and what is external, because it is ambiguous. How would anyone justify any claims, if they cannot demonstrate external correspondence with what they are claiming that they know within themselves?

With ghosts and such, the claim is that the ghost is out there, so to justify the claim the individual must demonstrate where that ghost is. If God comes to an individual from within, and , makes His presence known to that individual from within, how can we ask that individual to demonstrate God's existence by referring to what is external to the individual.

There's a long tradition in rabbinical teaching of the teacher asking questions rather than providing answers or statements. Jesus eludes to the idea of being the son of God. He also refers to his "father in heaven" in the context of describing God. So these were things that were understood at the time, but the significance of Jesus' approach to teaching gets lost to history pretty often. — Noble Dust

It is quite common in the Old Testament to see God referred to with the name "Father". It's actually in the Lord's Prayer. I think it's quite a stretch to accuse everyone who uses "Father" to refer to God, as claiming to be the Son of God.

I really do not think that Jesus ever claimed to be Son of God. To my knowledge, he referred to himself as Son of Man. There are two distinct claims involved here, that Jesus claimed to be Son of God, and that Jesus is Son of God. These two are part of a very complex issue surrounding his life, sacrifice, resurrection, and Christianity itself. It may well be a major flaw in Christianity, but Christianity was created by human beings, and this is just a reflection of the imperfection of human existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is false, Jesus DID claim to not only be the Son of God, but to be one with the Father. This is actually one of the charges of the Pharisees against Him before the Crucifixion.

Mark 1:1 starts by mentioning this is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Luke 1:35 which details the birth of Jesus, where again, the angels say that he will be the Son of God.

John 10:30 - Jesus says "I and the Father are One"

John 10:36 where Jesus handles the accusation of blasphemy because he claimed to be the Son of God.

Etc.

Really the evidence is very clear, I can't understand how anyone who has read the Gospels can claim that Jesus did NOT claim to be the Son of God.

Jesus DID claim to not only be the Son of God, but to be one with the Father. — Agustino

I don't think many people these days would bother to contest the Son of God claim, since that claim needn't be blasphemous or controversial. When I was a young RC, we used to sing a modern hymn called 'Sons of God', about how we are just that.

To say 'I and the Father are One' goes a considerable step further, but that is only in John, which was written much later than all the other gospels, with the writer aiming, through the words he attributed to Jesus, to promote a very specific theology that there is no evidence of being in place when the earliest gospels were written.

I don't think many would bother to contest the Son of God claim, since that claim needn't be blasphemous or controversial. When I was a young RC, we used to sing a modern hymn called 'Sons of God', about how we are just that. — andrewk

Okay, but I do not dispute that. Eastern Orthodoxy (of which I'm a member) teaches that Jesus Christ became man so that we may become gods. This includes some of the earliest church theologians, for example:

A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the Incarnation of God, which makes man God to the same degree as God Himself became man ... . Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods. For it is clear that He Who became man without sin (cf. Heb. 4:15) will divinize human nature without changing it into the Divine Nature, and will raise it up for His Own sake to the same degree as He lowered Himself for man's sake. This is what St[.] Paul teaches mystically when he says, '[]that in the ages to come he might display the overflowing richness of His grace' (Eph. 2:7) — St. Maximus the Confessor

However, this does not entail that we are sons of God in the same way Jesus is the Son of God.

In reading your post the word that come to my mind is "paradigm" : some people experience the world through one paradigm and for others they see it through a different one. However the one wrinkle that kind of remains; are these paradigms (which may be created through experience and discourse as you say and/or through other means) supported merely through "appeals to authority"/"proof by assertion" or is it done through something else? — dclements

Appeals to authority and proofs by assertion belong to a typology of arguments, and therefore are not invoked in the activity of "supporting a paradigm". Arguments do not support a paradigm. Arguments are useful to (a) root out inconsistencies in paradigms and (b) to enhance communication of viewpoints.

What supports a paradigm is experience. This does not mean that all believers have "experienced God" in a mystical sense, but it does mean that the support of their paradigms is rooted in things they lived, not in things they heard or read. "Things they lived" can include events which, if analysed thoroughly, would fall under "appeal to authority" -- all of us are inordinately influenced by our early childhood, and in functional families, this will include the transfer of paternal viewpoints.

What is needed for interfaith dialogues (including here dialogue between believers and non-believers) is the discarding of the "argument" fetish as a foundation for criticizing other viewpoints. Argument is great for criticizing your own viewpoint. That we enjoy so much using it against the other guy's viewpoint, rather than our own, is just another indication of our fallen nature ;).

Paul is our first source (but Paul never met Jesus) and the Gospels (formed up and finished later than Paul) are the "authoritative" story of Jesus. There wouldn't have been a Jesus movement for Paul to first resist then join if Jesus had not existed. — Bitter Crank

BC check out From Jesus to Paul, by Martin Hengel. A bit dry, stuffed with footnotes, and with a lot of interesting information about this period.

OK, suppose we remove this distinction then, between what is internal and what is external, because it is ambiguous. How would anyone justify any claims, if they cannot demonstrate external correspondence with what they are claiming that they know within themselves? — Metaphysician Undercover

That doesn't remove the distinction, it utilises it.

Anyway, it's what is called anecdotal evidence, and this sort of evidence is weighed against other factors. Just as I didn't believe T Clark when he said he doesn't understand why some anecdotal claims are rejected, given that we accept anecdotal claims every day, I wouldn't believe you if you suggested likewise. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's part and parcel of living life. We all do it. But when it comes to God, you get a double standard and special pleading. Or one will bite the bullet, lower the bar, and allow a whole load of nonsense to come flooding in - at least temporarily, whilst defending God, before one inevitably slips back into their usual standard.

With ghosts and such, the claim is that the ghost is out there, so to justify the claim the individual must demonstrate where that ghost is. If God comes to an individual from within, and , makes His presence known to that individual from within, how can we ask that individual to demonstrate God's existence by referring to what is external to the individual. — Metaphysician Undercover

You haven't clarified the ambiguity at all, you've just repeated it. What does it mean to say that God comes to an individual from within, and that God makes his presence known from within? We can't make much progress until I know what you're talking about. I suspect you're hiding behind obscurity - exploiting it.

I'm not really asking anything, except rhetorically. If they can't justify it, I can't believe it. Anecdotal evidence isn't enough.

We think of many people who make these kind of claims and genuinely believe them as whacks. Why should we think of people who believe that God has communicated with them any differently? A clairvoyant who isn't just a charlatan should be put in the whack box.

What I'm interested in is why do people take the interesting topic of theism vs atheism (vs agnosticism) and then limit the discussion to the Christian God?

If the goal is to have an intellectual and philosophically minded discussion on the topic, I feel like the supporters of God's existence still have to start with theism, unless the argument is having felt a direct connection to the God. In this thread the interesting thought that people feeling that way can be dismissed as crazy was brought up, similarly to those who believe to have seen UFOs or ghosts, but isn't that rather irrational? When a person is diagnosed to be mentally ill based on nothing but what they say seeming irrational, isn't the doctor the crazy one?

See 's comment

My claim - and I maintain that this was quite apparent from the start, and in retrospect you might be able to see this - is that the claim that one has experienced the presence of God in their life is analogous in ways to the claim that one has experienced the presence of extraterrestrials or ghosts in their life. — Sapientia

Maybe this was my fault for not being clearer about what I meant by experiencing the presence of God in one's life. I'm not talking about burning bushes, appearances of the holy ghost, or miracles. It's an internal experience of a prescience of something beyond one's self, outside one's self. It is a common human experience. As I said, I'm not a believer in any religion, but I've had the experience. Based on that, I don't think that interpreting it as god is crazy. It makes a certain sense.

My argument for that would consist in bringing attention to these commonalities. Let's take evidence. What evidence is there that someone has experienced the presence of God, as opposed to having had an experience and concluded that they experienced the presence of God? I would ask likewise with regards to extraterrestrials and with regards to ghosts. — Sapientia

As I said, this is a common human experience. It's nothing weird. Maybe you've never felt it. You may have felt it but didn't identify it as God. Many, many people do see it that way. Ridiculing them without even trying to understand is arrogant.

In this thread the interesting thought that people feeling that way can be dismissed as crazy was brought up, similarly to those who believe to have seen UFOs or ghosts, but isn't that rather irrational? When a person is diagnosed to be mentally ill based on nothing but what they say seeming irrational, isn't the doctor the crazy one? — BlueBanana

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.

That they're "crazy" is a theory, and a theory which has more going for it than that they're speaking the truth.

What I like about the word "crazy" is that it doesn't necessarily mean something like "diagnosed with a mental illness", but can have a weaker and broader meaning. It can be an exaggeration. If that isn't already clear, it can be put in scare quotes, as I've been doing. Under the circumstances, it wouldn't be reasonable to interpret my use of that word too strongly, literally, technically, or narrowly, in such a manner.

Maybe this was my fault for not being clearer about what I meant by experiencing the presence of God in one's life. — T Clark

Yes, it was. Like it's Metaphysician Undercover's fault for not being clearer about what he means by his "God from within" talk.

I'm not talking about burning bushes, appearances of the holy ghost, or miracles. It's an internal experience of a prescience of something beyond one's self, outside one's self. It is a common human experience. As I said, I'm not a believer in any religion, but I've had the experience. Based on that, I don't think that interpreting it as god is crazy. It makes a certain sense. — T Clark

I don't see how you can avoid the fork in the argument that I've been making. These claims are either of the supernatural or miraculous kind -
which can't be defended well - or they deflate to something rather natural and ordinary -
which makes it uncontroversial. In your case, it seems your argument tries to go in the latter direction.

But you're still wording it wrong, it seems, unless you can actually back up what you're saying, which remains to be seen. It's an internal experience of what one takes to be a prescience of something beyond or outside of one's self. That may be a common human experience, and one that I would take you at your word when you say that you've had it.

Interpreting it as God might be understandable, but that doesn't make it any less "crazy" in my sense, as opposed to Bitter Crank's sense, which seems to basically mean "understandable". If I was off my head on drugs then I might have all kinds of thoughts, which would be understandable, given the circumstances, but bat shit crazy nonetheless.

As I said, this is a common human experience. It's nothing weird. Maybe you've never felt it. You may have felt it but didn't identify it as God. Many, many people do see it that way. Ridiculing them without even trying to understand is arrogant. — T Clark

I'm beyond caring about what is or is not arrogant. We aren't doing ethics. I care about what's right or wrong in the other sense. And no, if I have had such an experience, I haven't jumped to the conclusion that it was God - I'm not crazy.

Another discussion without an adequate definition of terms. For purposes of discussion, anyone care to define "god"? If not, how do any of you know what you're writing about, or what anyone else is writing about?

I'll give it a push: "God" (i.e., the three-letter word) is given as the comprehensive answer to a number of questions otherwise thought unanswerable, even unapproachable. Examples: where did the universe come from? Why (the ultimate why) did X happen? What should I do and why should I do it? This is just a short list and no doubt can added to.

But for each of these questions, and any similar questions, the god that is the answer is a different god! That is, when you peel back the idea of the answer to see what it contains, with each answer you find a different god. To account for the universe, for example, you need the assurance, given as reason, that the laws in effect here are reconcilable with the laws as they appear to exist there. (If they weren't, no account is possible.)

As to why this or that happened (as ultimate reason or cause), "god" is simply an assurance of reason, however inaccessible, saving us from an abyss of meaninglessness.

And why should I do this and not do that? "God" is a simple voice of authority.

My short list, then, is "god" as assurance, reason, authority. But isn't this a little strange? "God" appears to be just exactly that, that in every case meets a human need, and meets it, furthermore, without ever being an efficient cause of anything. I think it a useful exercise to recast any question that has ever been answered by "god" so that it can be answered more accessibly.

For example, if the answer to why X happened is (in general terms) "god," and is given to provide meaning, then perhaps it is better to acknowledge that a) some things are without meaning, and b) it is worthwhile to think through providing your own meaning - subject to the test of the reasonableness of your own application of meaning. The real issue here, of course, is significance, which is a human and not a divine concern.

And so forth. People can and will have non-rational, super-natural beliefs willy-nilly. But the substance of any such belief can never be the subject of rational discussion.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish. — Sapientia

I agree with this point. However, to move the argument forward, I think we all hit a wall. In all presentations about theism, determinism and the antithesis; we come to an “uncertainty” principle. We all reach this chasm in which the final proof is absent. I have heard you say before Sapientia “I don’t have to prove the antithesis”. I think you do – and – if you can’t “things” are uncertain. That is what we are left with – I call it the uncertainty principle. I wrote this in another thread:

Spirituality is an experience and can happen anywhere or time – to anyone. Anytime someone tells you they have talked to God – escape quietly – less they attack you with their delusional righteousness. God does not need us – quite the contrary – we need God. Or perhaps I should say we desire God. We are almost nothing to God – a speck of dust. If our sun blows up – I doubt we will be missed. What is our consequence in the scheme of things? There are probably billions of other beings much more advanced than us. Do you think we are one of God’s favorites? People wish for heaven because they are not satisfied how they have lived this life. Heaven is here – now – don’t miss the boat. I don’t know much about God – what ethics and morals “It” has – I cannot say – other than to say I like the laws of physics. I know the ethics and morals of man – it is not always very pretty – many times sad.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. — Sapientia

This forum is not where I expected to be the one to remind people that the burden of proof works both ways, that a claim can be dismissed doesn't equal the claim being false and absence of proof isn't proof of absence.

And no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish. — Sapientia

Innocent until proven otherwise, right? Unless there is an specific reason to doubt person's honesty, what they're telling should from objective point of view assumed to be true. I wouldn't believe a person if they told me they were abducted by aliens, but I would recognise that as my subjective opinion.

Yes, it was. — Sapientia

Oh, Sapientia, you are incorrigible. Discussing things with you is fun.

I'm beyond caring about what is or is not arrogant. We aren't doing ethics. I care about what's right or wrong in the other sense. And no, if I have had such an experience, I haven't jumped to the conclusion that it was God - I'm not crazy. — Sapientia

It's not ethics, it's the quality of the philosophy. Cluttering your statements up with comments that have nothing to do with the question at hand is bad philosophy. "That's ridiculous" is not an argument.

I don't see how you can avoid the fork in the argument that I've been making. These claims are either of the supernatural or miraculous kind -
which can't be defended well - or they deflate to something rather natural and ordinary -
which makes it uncontroversial. In your case, it seems your argument tries to go in the latter direction. — Sapientia

I guess my take is somewhere in the middle. Completely within the bounds of the natural, I think it is reasonable to consider our world as ....sentient?....a person?.....alive? None of those are right. Other people have taken that further than I have and created the range of religions and Gods that step into our world and manipulate it. I think those people have included something important in their view of the world that you leave out. Regardless of my feelings about a personal God, I think that gives them an advantage. On the other hand, I think your approach has it's own advantages that theistic beliefs miss. Solution - synthesis.

I agree with this point. However, to move the argument forward, I think we all hit a wall. In all presentations about theism, determinism and the antithesis; we come to an “uncertainty” principle. We all reach this chasm in which the final proof is absent. I have heard you say before Sapientia “I don’t have to prove the antithesis”. I think you do – and – if you can’t “things” are uncertain. That is what we are left with – I call it the uncertainty principle. I wrote this in another thread: — Thinker

I don't have to prove the antithesis unless that's my position. And yes, most things are uncertain.

(And the "uncertainty principle" has already been taken).

God does not need us – quite the contrary – we need God. Or perhaps I should say we desire God. — Thinker

Speak for yourself.

We are almost nothing to God – a speck of dust. — Thinker

No, we're real. Even a speck of dust is real. That's more than can knowingly be said about God. God is almost nothing to me besides being an interesting talking point, a subject of enquiry into human psychology, and that sort of thing. God is not a crutch for me.

If our sun blows up – I doubt we will be missed. What is our consequence in the scheme of things? — Thinker

Many theists would find the notion that God is destructible to be absurd, but there is reason to believe that God would die along with us. Some have said that he's already dead. In actually living my life, seizing the day is more important to me than the grand scheme of things. My concern is thisworldliness, rather than otherworldliness.

This forum is not where I expected to be the one to remind people that the burden of proof works both ways, that a claim can be dismissed doesn't equal the claim being false and absence of proof isn't proof of absence. — BlueBanana

How patronising. You think I need to be reminded of that? If you're suggesting that I've equated those things, then you're mistaken. And actually, absence of proof can be proof of absence. Whether it is or is not in any given case is debatable and would depend on the details.

Innocent until proven otherwise, right? — BlueBanana

No. That applies in a court of law, which this isn't. I don't think about this in terms of proof, but in terms of good reason.

Unless there is an specific reason to doubt person's honesty, what they're telling should from objective point of view assumed to be true. — BlueBanana

Ha! No. That wouldn't be objective. One can be honest while making a false statement. If I have reason to believe that they're honest, but have reason to doubt that what they're saying is true, then I'm not going to assume that what they say is true.

I wouldn't believe a person if they told me they were abducted by aliens, but I would recognise that as my subjective opinion. — BlueBanana

That is either trivial or an attempt to underemphasise what might well be good reason to not believe them.

You're not really saying that there are two types of Christian - fake Christians who don't really believe and hard core Christians who will kill their Children, are you?
--T Clark
I've been doing this long enough to word my position a bit more carefully than that. If you reread my post a little more carefully you will see that I said SOME Christians (hopefully more than just one or two of them for the sake of my argument) believe "that there are two types of Christian - fake Christians who don't really believe and hard core Christians who will kill their Children".

Actually this is more along the lines of Kierkegaard wrote than any particular nutcase out there preaching what they think the bible says. It is also worthwhile to note that AS THE PATRIARCH of JUDAISM , CHRISTIANITY, and ISLAM - Abraham is the founder of all Abrahamic religions (hence the name 'Abrahamic religions') and when asked by 'God' to sacrifice his first son, he went through the motions without really any hesitation. While it may be heresy to claim that God would ask someone to kill one of their children (or someone else) in order to please him, IT IS RIGHT THERE IN THE BIBLE OF HIM (or her/it/they if God so happens not to be a 'he') DOING SO. While it is improper for us in western society to talk or say anything such things, in the bible the founder of Judaism and all schisms of it (which includes Christianity) is faced with such a problem and the bible says what he did to resolve it which is more or less expected of any of it's 'true' followers as well. Although you may take from this what you may.

To be honest I only really know about this by reading through some intro material to Kierkegaard and in his works he spent a good amount of time musing over this issue in Christianity.

Oh, Sapientia, you say such funny things. Discussing things with you is fun. — T Clark

My pleasure.

It's not ethics, it's the quality of the philosophy. Cluttering your statements up with comments that have nothing to do with the question at hand is bad philosophy. "That's ridiculous" is not an argument. — T Clark

No one's perfect (although some of us are more perfect than others ;) ). Ironically, you are guilty of what you insinuate of me above. "That's ridiculous" is not an argument. Neither is "That's snotty" or "That's arrogant". Not outside of a context in which that's the topic of discussion.

I guess my take is somewhere in the middle. Completely within the bounds of the natural, I think it is reasonable to consider our world as ....sentient?....a person?.....alive? None of those are right. — T Clark

Yes, none of those are right. I'm glad we agree.

Other people have taken that further than I have and created the range of religions and Gods that step into our world and manipulate it. I think those people have included something important in their view of the world that you leave out. Regardless of my feelings about a personal God, I think that gives them an advantage. On the other hand, I think your approach has it's own advantages that theistic beliefs miss. Solution - synthesis. — T Clark

Hmm. Maybe. You'd have to elaborate.

This forum is not where I expected to be the one to remind people that the burden of proof works both ways, that a claim can be dismissed doesn't equal the claim being false and absence of proof isn't proof of absence. — BlueBanana

No, formally, the burden of proof doesn't work both ways. Those supporting a proposition have to provide the evidence. Those who don't support it counter that evidence. All those who don't support the proposition have to do is show the supporters have not made their case, not that they are wrong.

If you can't support a position, you shouldn't propose it. Although then, where would the fun be?