🚀 go-pugleaf

In article
<5392b914-4e96-4a67-a3ab-453aa9bcc890@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
hhyapster@gmail.com () wrote:

> You are banking on a philosophical context, or approach.
> When we talk about evidence, we are then sure of things or event or
> happening. Anything solid in this world would have the possibility of
> a definition.
> But a god...can you provide a definition and his existence?
> You very well know that a heaven and hell thing are the invention of
> human imagination and yet you believe we should not doubt them?

I don't *know* any such thing, though I'm quite happy to admit it as
possibility, even a strong likelihood. The reason I don't know whether
they're a reality or a figment of the imagination is simply that there is
no evidence pointing either way.

> And the god is showering this world with diseases, right? Why is that?

I'll leave that one for the theologians. I'm not arguing for the God
hypothesis, just pointing out that it is one that has not been either
proven or disproven.

The similarity between atheists and theists is not what they believe, but
their willingness to insist that they have a monopoly on the truth,
despite their inability to provide any proof or even decent evidence
either way.