(February 28, 2017 at 1:51 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(February 28, 2017 at 1:14 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Exactly. You present your case, offer supporting evidence, I assess it. If I find it compelling, I can be swayed. I might even be convinced. That's how it works. Think of it as selling me a second-hand car; what would get me to part with my cash?
That is an honest and respectable position, and I stress the word position. You have not back-peddled as some do into the "simply disbelieve" dodge. You have looked at the proposition and justified your positive believe that the proposition "God exists" is not true.
That's not quite accurate. I don't have a positive belief the way you describe. My position has always been "I withhold belief until the proposition "God exists" is demonstrated to be true". I hesitate to invoke Matt Dillahunty's courtroom analogy, simply because it's often misapplied, but it is at least accurate to my position. I may or may not hold beliefs as to the guilt of the defendant, but I have to suspend them in order to assess the evidence rationally. You may take some comfort in the fact that that's how I approach my rôle as Staff here - it's no secret that there have been certain individuals over whom I would shed no tears in their banning. However, I could not do the job and would actually be doing a grave disservice were I to let any such biases influence my judgement.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'