(February 18, 2022 at 11:39 pm)Jehanne Wrote:(February 18, 2022 at 9:32 pm)Belacqua Wrote: This is all very well said, I think! Thank you for posting it.
(It's pretty much what I've been saying, but since you're much nicer than I am people are more likely to read it with an open mind.)
It allows dialogue. So “You haven’t provided sufficient evidence or sound reason" is perfectly fair, and allows the person making the claim to explore what "sufficient evidence" or a "sound reason" might look like to the respondent.
We saw earlier someone making two claims: 1) there is no empirical evidence for God, and 2) we should not believe in things for which there is no empirical evidence.
If people were inclined, this is a very reasonable way to begin a discussion of classical theism, which of course never claimed that God would be some sort of physical object accessible to the senses. Since Plato, God is much more like Justice, or Mercy. Or numbers. These are things we don't sense, but can know of in the mind since we extrapolate their existence from actions and objects in the world.
I know that most people here won't accept this argument either, but it shows how, when someone presents his reasons, discussion is possible.
Just so that we are clear, the Greeks were pagans (that is, polytheistic), and if you read Homer, the gods were constantly intervening in the affairs of we mortals; that's what the Greeks, Plato included, believed, Romans, too.
The FSM, albeit a silly parody, would be comparable to those gods (like Zeus and such) but not comparable to God in the first cause kind of sense.
The latter is a product of millennia of intellectual thinking on metaphysical matters, and is a reasonable metaphysical position that one may take depending on their epistemological starting points.
