Hume was right

[RAD]

One doesn't need to observe something in order to conceive of it.

Because ideas can be combined.

i.e Angels = Humans + wings. One doesn't need to perceive an angel to think of this. One only has to perceive the separate parts. (or at least the parts of the parts - somewhere down the line you find observation).

The core of ideas originates in observation but ideas can evolve from their origins.

And, so, what? Y are not answering my question as far as I can tell. Isn't he saying what

He says let us "chase our imagination to the heavens" so I don't think he is talking about science here

The problem with most "free-thinkers" is they don't really think freely, the limitations of Christian thought not withstanding.

"I think more freely than you, therefore I must be a true "free-thinker'" is a logical fallacy. Not only that, it's dangerously limiting in itself. That is how i take Hume here.

Where is your actual evidence for Jesus as the son of God and God as "The father" (Who is also Jesus) actually existing?

The burden is entirely on you to prove the Gospel writers are lying, as any lawyer will tell you. Slander and libel cases put the burden of proof on the accuser, for good reason.

But I'll bite. Explain to us how fisherman wrote similies like Shakespeare, and IMO much more communicative of deep and useful insights?

How come the writers recorded Jesus' vulnerabilities and comments which lost him disciples by the hundreds, if they were merely inventors?

If you can answer those, we'll move on to Durant's argument for the basic veracity of the Gospels, which only one athesit I showed it to would even attempt. You can be the second.

It doesn't require any faith to believe the bulk of it, but as Durant says, cynics find one little contradiction and immediately say "false in one part, so false in all" a major logical fallacy. (Durant, an agnostic, described the discrepencies as "minutae.")