These are my words, and my understanding as expressed below. If I misstate anything or make a mistake, it is not intentional. I think I have a good grasp of the textbook definition of atheism, but when discussing it and thinking it through I have a lot of questions. When I refer to God I mean in the God in the Bible, and I am a christian. Hopefully I will do a better job on this forum topic than I did on my last. Here is my question.
If two people say that they have considered all the arguments, done research, thought about it at length, tried to consider everything, tried to have no presuppositions, and really tried hard to be objective and unbiased. They gave it a good faith effort to come up with the right answer and not what they wanted the answer to be. Then after all that, one person states the they are now very confident that there is a God. The other person states that they are now very confident that there is no God.
Why is the “no” conclusion the logical, rational, unbiased, scientific, reasonable, with no presuppositions conclusion, while the “is” conclusion is the opposite? Is there any way a believer could be justified in believing?
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.