No, we ended up talking about the unjustifiability of induction because I thought your position depended on it! I thought I was bringing up a well-known and uncontroversial bit of philosophy in order to see if your position on God was similar to my position on induction, but it caused more confusion than it cleared up.
I'm at work, so forgive me if I'm imprecise here but let me try another tack to clarify your position. On a first reading, it seems as if you want to have it both ways with regard to evidence; your beliefs about God are not just a conclusion you've reached after examining the evidence available to you, and therefore subject to reasonable debate like any other evidential conclusion, but (I think) it's evidence you cite in response to the GP objection. What am I getting wrong here?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 03:46 pm (UTC)I'm at work, so forgive me if I'm imprecise here but let me try another tack to clarify your position. On a first reading, it seems as if you want to have it both ways with regard to evidence; your beliefs about God are not just a conclusion you've reached after examining the evidence available to you, and therefore subject to reasonable debate like any other evidential conclusion, but (I think) it's evidence you cite in response to the GP objection. What am I getting wrong here?