🚀 go-pugleaf

Richard Meredith wrote:
> 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.
> 
Again I stress that theists think they have a monopoly of the truth, 
atheists are more likely to claim the high ground on rationality and 
logic, the proper use of which leads to the conclusion that the best one 
can say about the Truth, is that it is  (a la Wittgenstein) 'whatever is 
the case'

Which ultimately says nothing.