Man! we share the same MBIT type we're supposed to stand for each other here.. you just broke my heart [emoji174] [emoji1]hahaha
Ok I watched the video, this sounds valid when we speak about things
you say: hey where did that cup come from,
I say: oh it is just there by it self,
you say: but there must be someone who brought it an put it on the table,
I say: okay prove it..
So you can go on a journey of searching for evidence to know who manufactured that and put it on this table,
Now let's speak about evidence of God, you're obviously an educated man and know that all things around us are linked in reason, reason and outcome right? Let's not talk about a specific religion here it's merely a logic..
The universe in this process must be the outcome, which is eventually linked to a reason, and that reason is what the science is still in process of discovering, so whatever that reason is, it should be there even though it's not specifically proven to you, even if the science didn't have an actual definition for it.. We call that reason a GOD..
But if you want a proof like seeing a supernatural being, that's because you think that if there is a God you must see him, but since we still don't know how the God is, or let's say what is the (REASON) of existence of the universe is, we can't prove it in conventional ways..you see the evidence but can't find the reason.. That's where the belief comes, and yes I'm a believer what's wring with a belief..
Yes "I" is used when I talk about myself, because you're talking to me, and yes still find that to be illogical..
We could put things in formula to be more understandable
A proof or a fact is=theory+evidence+ actual experiment or examining
The believer has the formula of: theory+ evidence+ no examining, since we don't know how the God is, which in your opinion makes it invalid.. And subsequently a belief..
Now the atheist formula is: theory+ evidence+no experiment since you can't re-create the universe to prove that, so it's also invalid and subsequently a belief..
I am not a "typical" ENFJ by any stretch of the word. At first blush I appear as an ESTJ. It's largely because of my enneagram type.
You've made several errors. First, is that mundane things do not need to be subjected to the burden of proof, as it makes casual interaction impossible (the video points out this exactly near the end). Your cup example doesn't illustrate the burden of proof case either. First, we have a physical basis and understanding of what likely resulted in its placement. To claim that someone must have put it there is extremely reasonable, no one is going to deny that. Again, the video points out this near the end. Second, as you worded it, you are the one that made the claim; you stated that it's just there by itself. If I were to speak next, I would be asking for more information, not making the claim. By saying "surely someone must have put it there", is actually using precedent evidence of how objects are moved by people as a basis for countering you. I am challenging your statement of saying "it's just there", which offers nothing substantating to why it is there, to now giving a valid reason for basis of why. It would then be your turn to either combat my statement, or readjust your claim.
I don't think that all things are linked in reason (unless I am misunderstanding your wording). What I do think is that we have the ability to understand why things happen and are the way they are by using logic, and science. Some things will be easier than others, and others will not have an answer in our lifetime.
By you saying "we call that reason a god", is a unneeded placeholder. In the absence of any reason or evidence, it does no benefit to default to some sort of idea or explination. Worse, it can be damaging if it misleads investigation if it came from no support. Your statement boils down to the idea of "science can't explain it, so until then it must be god". To that sort of statement I say why? You are making the claim for one, and that line of reasoning is a non sequitur. Absence of reason or logic does not lead to there needing or being a god present.
You go further to say that I want "proof like seeing". Yes. I want proof that is testable and quantifiable by logic and scientific process just like any other theory we have currently. Whether it be in physics, chemistry, psychology, whatever it may be. I need something to be workable within these confines, because up to this point everything has worked within these (and those that haven't intitally eventually came to function under them). You are making a special pleading case of "the evidence can't be studied, it's a different kind of evidence". Ok, even if we assume that's the case we still have yet to get evidence that can be worked with. Until that point I have no reason to believe.
If you don't know "how the god is", then you have no way of understanding what it is, why it may be, or if it is even there in the first place. This is simply a statement of "it can't be understood, seen, or analyzed and proved in anyway. Nevertheless it's still there." which is irrational and can be dismissed because of it.
Your final statement is trying to shift the burden or proof onto atheism by asking us to prove a negative; that's now how logic works. You made the claim, not I. As the saying goes "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence".
Sorry of this seems cold/harsh/mean/demeaning; not my intent at all.
