(February 28, 2017 at 12:26 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: My lacking belief in your God and finding your claims about your God incredible is in no way contradictory, they mesh perfectly. Why would you expect me to believe something I find incredible in advance of being convinced that I am wrong about that? That said, your claims are not wrong just because I find them incredible.
The proposition "God exists"? is either true or not true - credulous or incredulous. Those are your only options as per the law of the excluded middle. I feel that if you are incredulous then you should be able to adequately give an account for it. The idea that the default stance is non-belief is based on a non-sequitur. Even if there is no compelling reason to accept either P or not-P, it does not mean one should accept not-P. That is an unjustified move from 'is' to 'ought'.
