(October 2, 2019 at 6:11 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote:(October 2, 2019 at 5:29 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: I never said it could.
But then, if a god exists, that is outside of our natural epistemology, then I aren't I still justified in disbelieving it exists?
If said god exists, but cannot be demonstrated to exist, how is such a god distinguishable from a god that does not exist?
The possibility of supernatural causes. Miracles. This might be essentially what divides the theist from the atheist: belief that nature is absolutely uniform or relatively uniform.
But once again, with the data provided to me by theists, and the lack of confirmed, verifiable miracles or supernatural causes to examine, isn't my disbelief in a god rationally based?
Even if, and that's a big if, miracles and supernatural causes could be confirmed. That still would not mean a god is responsible. You can't get to 'therefore god exists', from, 'something supernatural occured.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
