my point is you may by your definition look for a reason thru deduction and investigation to find a reason why you are in a sea and why you are in a boat but in your zeal to discount the thought of a "god" you discount the posibility since there is no tanagable proof.using history as a example of how theory and ideas change thru time and advancement it easy to come to the conclusion that maybe all the answers are not easy to understand and conclusions written in stone in one time or place can become changed and wrong.
I'm not discounting the idea that a "God" may of made this universe(or in your analogy put us in the ocean). However I AM discounting the ARGUMENTS put forth that claim to prove such a thing happened.
True. Ideas in science change through time. However they only change through proof. I hold out on any possibility. I never dismiss anything. However I also never believe anything unless there's proof.
in all your scientific discovery it comes down to something very simple. if "god" was something you could taste or touch or see or hear or feel why by definition would you ever need faith? if i tell you about a situation (will never happen) that happen to me and give you all the "facts" how can you disprove what i experenced? there is no way to "test" of recreate the situation so either you believe what happened as "fact" or you choose not to.
Anecdotes aren't evidence. If you tell me of a "miracle" that happened to you(Has been done several times by other christians) then you'd have to prove it happened through facts,Not "accounts". In science "because he says so" isn't proof of anything. Unless you can prove such things occured then they're useless to me.
I choose not to believe fantastical accounts from people who claim they are miracles. I choose not to believe UNTIL they provide evidence.
People lie.
People get confused.
People fool other people.
People fool themselves.
i tend to be very tolerant of peoples beliefs, if what you think is right and it makes you happy so be it because someone will be right and someone will be wrong in the end and it wont matter. i think the problem i have with atheist is it not a choice its a conclusion (there is no action if the action is to not make a choice to believe or not to believe) its pure and simple fence sitting i can't find "proof" so ergo there is no god.in that theory if i cannot get into a locked room and cannot see into a locked room and i cannot get around to see any sides of a locked room then it does not exsist. its a conclusion of the lazy or scared to not want to think past ones own self.
You're missing the entire point of my former posts.
I NEVER conclude "There is no evidence for a god so there is no God." That would be a logical fallacy called "Argument from ignorance".
Fence sitting is the best option when the facts aren't known. You can't make the conclusion there is a God since there is no proof of that. Nor can you make the conclusion there isn't a God since there is no proof for that either.
I doubt there is a "God" but I don't say there isn't one 100%. I simply don't believe there is. Lack of belief and belief against are two different things.