Conclusive proof of God

[Aoi Magi]

Disbelief till proven IS a neutral position. If I claim my shoe is a living breathing shoe-monster which can create living dinosaurs, would you say you believe it when I failed to prove any evidence of me even having a shoe? Agnosticism is essentially being "not sure", "not believing" is the actual scientifically neutral position till the claim gets any form of proof worth considering.

If you claimed that about your shoe, then ofcourse I wouldn't believe it until you provided some evidence. But I would not KNOW that I was right, I would BELIEVE it. I would not KNOW i was right until you prove to me that your shoe isnt that which is proving a negative----something you cant do. However, I would be taking a stance without proof so it wouldnt be a neutral position. Only "not sure" is a neutral position.

You and I seem to have different definitions for the word "believe". Also your stance is confusing.

then ofcourse I wouldn't believe it until you provided some evidence. But I would not KNOW that I was right, I would BELIEVE it.

From a scientific standpoint, the idea is not even plausible when there is nothing to support it other than a baseless claim. It is up to the person making the claim to bring forth something worth considering the plausibility of the claim before one can say "this may or may not be valid".



Coming back to the confusion regarding the definitions of god, yes, you're correct about that. But that is not an immediate concern. The basis of the idea of God in every major religion is a supernatural existence which can effect the natural world in a way which defies the natural laws. So before anyone can consider which god did the miracle, one needs to establish that there is a possibility of a supernatural existence which can defy the natural laws.