If there was a loving God, would you accept him?

[Mister Agenda]

I would like to begin with thanking everyone for responding to my Post. I was surprised how quickly everyone responded and I appreciate your input.

Thanks for not being a one-post wonder.

Snip. If I may summarize, the vast majority rejected (with exceptions of course) the very premise of the question because of a lack of "demonstrable" (empirical) proof.

I like your use of qualifiers. It bodes well.

I would like to use this summation to discuss what the theist and atheist "metaphysical dream" may look like. Could those on this post please discuss what they think of the following proposal:

1) What is the difference between fact and truth?

No significant difference. If something is a fact, it's true. There's no guarantee one can't be wrong about either.

Many of you have pointed to the lack of evidence. But do facts mean truth? Are they synonymous?

If something is a fact, it's considered to be true. They are synonyms, without much difference in their definitions.

In my opinion, facts are simply points on our mental grid of what we interpret reality to be.

Scientific facts require a consensus of observation, mundane facts are the result of direct experience. Some filtering is unavoidable.

Atheism is simply an interpretation of how these facts (points) intersect with one another.

Atheism is the state of not believing in any God or gods. There are a variety of ways to find yourself in that state. Although skepticism is well represented here, never having been indoctrinated to believe in a God is also fairly common, for instance. There are several countries where atheism is very common and has more to do with having been indoctrinated in an atheistic ideology (communism). Do you actually want to talk about rational empiricism, which tends to lead to atheism?

Therefore, facts can point in many ways. An atheist will look at the facts and interpret them one way. The theist will look at the facts and interpret them to fit their mental grid. But neither of these is necessarily reality itself. Reality is in fact only the right interpretation of the facts.

Rational empiricism is basically an approach to reduce acceptance of false interpretation of facts. It's a garbage filter. However, there is always the chance that it will cause one to reject something that turns out to be true, which is usually viewed by its practitioners as a small price to pay to avoid having a head full of garbage.

So is the issue between a theist and an atheist simply about facts (evidence)?

It is simply about belief and nonbelief in the divine.

Snip.