Told by christian friend that my lifelong depression is because I don’t “know Jesus”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ Lots of words there, but to be succinct:

There are many other kinds of evidence than scientific evidence.

There is legal evidence, historical evidence, empirical evidence...

...no atheists specifically asks for scientific evidence. We ask for ANY evidence.

So saying "god doesn't conform to science" is both a flawed circular argument as well as a poor response to the request for evidence.

The rest of that post is strawman from the Bishop.

Great, so i presented some rational arguments. Or do you not believe rationality to be evidence? Go google arguments for existence of God, it's not hard to find. I think you are being honest to say there's no evidence (which is the same as saying there are no arguments). You should just say you don't find the available arguments for existence of God to be persuasive. And we would have all saved ourselves like 10 pages of this thread.

Used the term "insufficient evidence" over and over again. Over and over.

Ok so we are agreed then. There probably won't be any new evidence of God emerging anytime soon, so you can probably stop thinking about it.

So you are saying it is decided and he does not exist?

That's rhetorical, I know you are not saying that. And if the claims he does exist aren't made, then there is nothing to respond to.

That's why there are no responses to the "Do Leprechauns Exist" question, and no Leprechaunists arguing with Aleprechaunists in forums.

[Anonymous]

So you are saying it is decided and he does not exist?

That's rhetorical, I know you are not saying that. And if the claims he does exist aren't made, then there is nothing to respond to.

That's why there are no responses to the "Do Leprechauns Exist" question, and no Leprechaunists arguing with Aleprechaunists in forums.

Let me correct this for you. Bolded should say "And if I don't find claims for his existence sufficient, then there is nothing more to say." Correct, yes. Humans are free to disagree and I can see things one way and you can see it another way. No one can convince another from sheer will of the existence of God.

[Anonymous]

But if you are truly a seeker of answers, etc, i would suggest you work really hard finding some answers to those questions I had for which you had no response, like the question of evil, or objective morality, why do humans cover our genitals, or how did the world/universe/reality as we know it begin. You might not think there is enough support for my hypothesis but I've also heard no claims disapproving it, and you have no alternative hypothesis to offer. At least none that you've shared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But if you are truly a seeker of answers, etc, i would suggest you work really hard finding some answers to those questions I had for which you had no response, like the question of evil, or objective morality, why do humans cover our genitals, or how did the world/universe/reality as we know it begin. You might not think there is enough support for my hypothesis but I've also heard no claims disapproving it, and you have no alternative hypothesis to offer. At least none that you've shared.

Again, the argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity fallacies. The fact that you can't imagine an alternative and no one can disprove it with evidence is not sufficient proof to believe a thing.

There are nearly an infinite number of things you can believe with this standard of logic. Like Russell's teapot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

(yes, another link, and they are called citations)

[Anonymous]

Why try to prove the existence of God? Just believe. Just feel. Just Know.

Is there any religion that attempts to prove God's existence?

I don't know of one. But all religions that I know of encourage, or demand, faith in God. Belief in God.

Belief is very comforting to religious people.

No-one wants to go to Hell for eternity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why try to prove the existence of God? Just believe. Just feel. Just Know.

Is there any religion that attempts to prove God's existence?

I don't know of one. But all religions that I know of encourage, or demand, faith in God. Belief in God.

Belief is very comforting to religious people.

No-one wants to go to Hell for eternity.

What if there is no hell? And why would you believe something like that with virtually no evidence?

Do you care what is true?

If you suspected your beliefs weren't true but the thought of afterlife gave you comfort would you believe anyway?

/ps IMHO any god that would create a hell has my invitation to be it's honored occupant.

[Anonymous]

Again, the argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity fallacies. The fact that you can't imagine an alternative and no one can disprove it with evidence is not sufficient proof to believe a thing.

There are nearly an infinite number of things you can believe with this standard of logic. Like Russell's teapot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

(yes, another link, and they are called citations)

The unraveling of your teapot theory is right in the article under criticism: Philosopher Brian Garvey argues that the teapot analogy fails with regard to religion because, with the teapot, the believer and non-believer are simply disagreeing about one item in the universe and may hold in common all other beliefs about the universe, which is not true of an atheist and a theist. Garvey argues that it is not a matter of the theist propounding existence of a thing and the atheist simply denying it – each is asserting an alternative explanation of why the cosmos exists and is the way it is: "the atheist is not just denying an existence that the theist affirms – the atheist is in addition committed to the view that the universe is not the way it is because of God. It is either the way it is because of something other than God, or there is no reason it is the way it is."

Exactly what I have been saying about you and your non-neutral stance. You still think you are neutral, I get it, but you are not. The only difference is you can't see your lack of neutrality. Everyone lives life based on a set of assumptions about reality. I live my life assuming Christianity, you live yours assuming either no God or an unknowable and therefore irrelevant God (because, as I said, there will be no new evidence of God and you've already found all the current ones unsatisfactory). We are both making a positive decision in the direction of how to live our lives, and so we have equal burden of proof. But yet I am still not hearing any positive explanations from you about the burning questions of mankind since the dawn of history. The silence is deafening.

As for incredulity fallacy you keep bringing up, it really isn't what I have been arguing at all. It's not that I can't understand why something is the way it is and therefore my incredulity is the basis of my belief. I am saying that the human race as a whole reaches for beyond this world, not just in trying to explain cosmic phenomenon but in their interior search for meaning. Any one person with a knowledge gap or weird penchant for religion maybe you can chalk up to incredulity fallacy, but a whole species with this trait demands an explanation from you, the atheist. And anyone who denies that a defining characteristic of what makes us human is our search for transcendence and meaning is just...kidding themselves. I am also saying based on all observation, all natural desires in this world correspond to some real object that can satisfy that desire. But yet we have a natural desire for "more" that nothing in this world can satisfy. Here is some observational evidence for you. If every single natural desire has an answer in this world, except for this one, what is our logical conclusion? Either deny that desire or conclude that the answer to that desire lies beyond this world. It sounded like from past posts, despite you having spent all this time arguing religion with me and having admitted you have had this hobby for years, you are going with the former conclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Again, the argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity fallacies. The fact that you can't imagine an alternative and no one can disprove it with evidence is not sufficient proof to believe a thing.

There are nearly an infinite number of things you can believe with this standard of logic. Like Russell's teapot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

(yes, another link, and they are called citations)

The unraveling of your teapot theory is right in the article under criticism: Philosopher Brian Garvey argues that the teapot analogy fails with regard to religion because, with the teapot, the believer and non-believer are simply disagreeing about one item in the universe and may hold in common all other beliefs about the universe, which is not true of an atheist and a theist. Garvey argues that it is not a matter of the theist propounding existence of a thing and the atheist simply denying it – each is asserting an alternative explanation of why the cosmos exists and is the way it is: "the atheist is not just denying an existence that the theist affirms – the atheist is in addition committed to the view that the universe is not the way it is because of God. It is either the way it is because of something other than God, or there is no reason it is the way it is."

Exactly what I have been saying about you and your non-neutral stance. You still think you are neutral, I get it, but you are not. The only difference is you can't see your lack of neutrality. Everyone lives life based on a set of assumptions about reality. I live my life assuming Christianity, you live yours assuming either no God or an unknowable and therefore irrelevant God (because, as I said, there will be no new evidence of God and you've already found all the current ones unsatisfactory). We are both making a positive decision in the direction of how to live our lives, and so we have equal burden of proof. But yet I am still not hearing any positive explanations from you about the burning questions of mankind since the dawn of history. The silence is deafening.

As for incredulity fallacy you keep bringing up, it really isn't what I have been arguing at all. It's not that I can't understand why something is the way it is and therefore my incredulity is the basis of my belief. I am saying that the human race as a whole reaches for beyond this world, not just in trying to explain cosmic phenomenon but in their interior search for meaning. Any one person with a knowledge gap or weird penchant for religion maybe you can chalk up to incredulity fallacy, but a whole species with this trait demands an explanation from you, the atheist. And anyone who denies that a defining characteristic of what makes us human is our search for transcendence and meaning is just...kidding themselves. I am also saying based on all observation, all natural desires in this world correspond to some real object that can satisfy that desire. But yet we have a natural desire for "more" that nothing in this world can satisfy. Here is some observational evidence for you. If every single natural desire has an answer in this world, except for this one, what is our logical conclusion? Either deny that desire or conclude that the answer to that desire lies beyond this world. It sounded like from past posts, despite you having spent all this time arguing religion with me and having admitted you have had this hobby for years, you are going with the former conclusion.

You and Mr. Garvey keep (purposefully) making the same logical errors: that Atheism is making an assertion about the origin of the universe, and that god did it or god didn't do it are the only possible responses to the question.

They aren't. And you know that.

Here's proof. Imagine we are walking and in a store window we see a giant jar full of gumballs. I tell you that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar, and say, "you agree, right?".

What do you reply?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why try to prove the existence of God? Just believe. Just feel. Just Know.

Is there any religion that attempts to prove God's existence?

I don't know of one. But all religions that I know of encourage, or demand, faith in God. Belief in God.

Belief is very comforting to religious people.

No-one wants to go to Hell for eternity.

What if there is no hell? And why would you believe something like that with virtually no evidence?

Do you care what is true?

If you suspected your beliefs weren't true but the thought of afterlife gave you comfort would you believe anyway?

/ps IMHO any god that would create a hell has my invitation to be it's honored occupant.

Good questions. People seem to be very influenced by what society teaches them as children - i.e., it's silly to believe in Santa or fairies after a certain age, but smart to believe in God.

Also, it seems that some people are predisposed to believe in the supernatural and others are not. If they weren't taught about God, they would probably dream it up themselves. Meanwhile, there are others (I've met some of them) who never believe it, even though they are regularly taken to church as children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, the argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity fallacies. The fact that you can't imagine an alternative and no one can disprove it with evidence is not sufficient proof to believe a thing.

There are nearly an infinite number of things you can believe with this standard of logic. Like Russell's teapot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

(yes, another link, and they are called citations)

The unraveling of your teapot theory is right in the article under criticism: Philosopher Brian Garvey argues that the teapot analogy fails with regard to religion because, with the teapot, the believer and non-believer are simply disagreeing about one item in the universe and may hold in common all other beliefs about the universe, which is not true of an atheist and a theist. Garvey argues that it is not a matter of the theist propounding existence of a thing and the atheist simply denying it – each is asserting an alternative explanation of why the cosmos exists and is the way it is: "the atheist is not just denying an existence that the theist affirms – the atheist is in addition committed to the view that the universe is not the way it is because of God. It is either the way it is because of something other than God, or there is no reason it is the way it is."

Exactly what I have been saying about you and your non-neutral stance. You still think you are neutral, I get it, but you are not. The only difference is you can't see your lack of neutrality. Everyone lives life based on a set of assumptions about reality. I live my life assuming Christianity, you live yours assuming either no God or an unknowable and therefore irrelevant God (because, as I said, there will be no new evidence of God and you've already found all the current ones unsatisfactory). We are both making a positive decision in the direction of how to live our lives, and so we have equal burden of proof. But yet I am still not hearing any positive explanations from you about the burning questions of mankind since the dawn of history. The silence is deafening.

As for incredulity fallacy you keep bringing up, it really isn't what I have been arguing at all. It's not that I can't understand why something is the way it is and therefore my incredulity is the basis of my belief. I am saying that the human race as a whole reaches for beyond this world, not just in trying to explain cosmic phenomenon but in their interior search for meaning. Any one person with a knowledge gap or weird penchant for religion maybe you can chalk up to incredulity fallacy, but a whole species with this trait demands an explanation from you, the atheist. And anyone who denies that a defining characteristic of what makes us human is our search for transcendence and meaning is just...kidding themselves. I am also saying based on all observation, all natural desires in this world correspond to some real object that can satisfy that desire. But yet we have a natural desire for "more" that nothing in this world can satisfy. Here is some observational evidence for you. If every single natural desire has an answer in this world, except for this one, what is our logical conclusion? Either deny that desire or conclude that the answer to that desire lies beyond this world. It sounded like from past posts, despite you having spent all this time arguing religion with me and having admitted you have had this hobby for years, you are going with the former conclusion.

You and Mr. Garvey keep (purposefully) making the same logical errors: that Atheism is making an assertion about the origin of the universe, and that god did it or god didn't do it are the only possible responses to the question.

They aren't. And you know that.

Here's proof. Imagine we are walking and in a store window we see a giant jar full of gumballs. I tell you that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar, and say, "you agree, right?".

What do you reply?

I reply "I don't know." But if I were suggestible and you were older/smarter than I and promising me something attractive if I give the expected answer, then I say "sure".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, the argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity fallacies. The fact that you can't imagine an alternative and no one can disprove it with evidence is not sufficient proof to believe a thing.

There are nearly an infinite number of things you can believe with this standard of logic. Like Russell's teapot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

(yes, another link, and they are called citations)

The unraveling of your teapot theory is right in the article under criticism: Philosopher Brian Garvey argues that the teapot analogy fails with regard to religion because, with the teapot, the believer and non-believer are simply disagreeing about one item in the universe and may hold in common all other beliefs about the universe, which is not true of an atheist and a theist. Garvey argues that it is not a matter of the theist propounding existence of a thing and the atheist simply denying it – each is asserting an alternative explanation of why the cosmos exists and is the way it is: "the atheist is not just denying an existence that the theist affirms – the atheist is in addition committed to the view that the universe is not the way it is because of God. It is either the way it is because of something other than God, or there is no reason it is the way it is."

Exactly what I have been saying about you and your non-neutral stance. You still think you are neutral, I get it, but you are not. The only difference is you can't see your lack of neutrality. Everyone lives life based on a set of assumptions about reality. I live my life assuming Christianity, you live yours assuming either no God or an unknowable and therefore irrelevant God (because, as I said, there will be no new evidence of God and you've already found all the current ones unsatisfactory). We are both making a positive decision in the direction of how to live our lives, and so we have equal burden of proof. But yet I am still not hearing any positive explanations from you about the burning questions of mankind since the dawn of history. The silence is deafening.

As for incredulity fallacy you keep bringing up, it really isn't what I have been arguing at all. It's not that I can't understand why something is the way it is and therefore my incredulity is the basis of my belief. I am saying that the human race as a whole reaches for beyond this world, not just in trying to explain cosmic phenomenon but in their interior search for meaning. Any one person with a knowledge gap or weird penchant for religion maybe you can chalk up to incredulity fallacy, but a whole species with this trait demands an explanation from you, the atheist. And anyone who denies that a defining characteristic of what makes us human is our search for transcendence and meaning is just...kidding themselves. I am also saying based on all observation, all natural desires in this world correspond to some real object that can satisfy that desire. But yet we have a natural desire for "more" that nothing in this world can satisfy. Here is some observational evidence for you. If every single natural desire has an answer in this world, except for this one, what is our logical conclusion? Either deny that desire or conclude that the answer to that desire lies beyond this world. It sounded like from past posts, despite you having spent all this time arguing religion with me and having admitted you have had this hobby for years, you are going with the former conclusion.

You and Mr. Garvey keep (purposefully) making the same logical errors: that Atheism is making an assertion about the origin of the universe, and that god did it or god didn't do it are the only possible responses to the question.

They aren't. And you know that.

Here's proof. Imagine we are walking and in a store window we see a giant jar full of gumballs. I tell you that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar, and say, "you agree, right?".

What do you reply?

So you think there are other possibilities other than 1) there is a God or 2) there is no God? Please share what these are. I suspect your response will reveal that you are defining God wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, the argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity fallacies. The fact that you can't imagine an alternative and no one can disprove it with evidence is not sufficient proof to believe a thing.

There are nearly an infinite number of things you can believe with this standard of logic. Like Russell's teapot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

(yes, another link, and they are called citations)

The unraveling of your teapot theory is right in the article under criticism: Philosopher Brian Garvey argues that the teapot analogy fails with regard to religion because, with the teapot, the believer and non-believer are simply disagreeing about one item in the universe and may hold in common all other beliefs about the universe, which is not true of an atheist and a theist. Garvey argues that it is not a matter of the theist propounding existence of a thing and the atheist simply denying it – each is asserting an alternative explanation of why the cosmos exists and is the way it is: "the atheist is not just denying an existence that the theist affirms – the atheist is in addition committed to the view that the universe is not the way it is because of God. It is either the way it is because of something other than God, or there is no reason it is the way it is."

Exactly what I have been saying about you and your non-neutral stance. You still think you are neutral, I get it, but you are not. The only difference is you can't see your lack of neutrality. Everyone lives life based on a set of assumptions about reality. I live my life assuming Christianity, you live yours assuming either no God or an unknowable and therefore irrelevant God (because, as I said, there will be no new evidence of God and you've already found all the current ones unsatisfactory). We are both making a positive decision in the direction of how to live our lives, and so we have equal burden of proof. But yet I am still not hearing any positive explanations from you about the burning questions of mankind since the dawn of history. The silence is deafening.

As for incredulity fallacy you keep bringing up, it really isn't what I have been arguing at all. It's not that I can't understand why something is the way it is and therefore my incredulity is the basis of my belief. I am saying that the human race as a whole reaches for beyond this world, not just in trying to explain cosmic phenomenon but in their interior search for meaning. Any one person with a knowledge gap or weird penchant for religion maybe you can chalk up to incredulity fallacy, but a whole species with this trait demands an explanation from you, the atheist. And anyone who denies that a defining characteristic of what makes us human is our search for transcendence and meaning is just...kidding themselves. I am also saying based on all observation, all natural desires in this world correspond to some real object that can satisfy that desire. But yet we have a natural desire for "more" that nothing in this world can satisfy. Here is some observational evidence for you. If every single natural desire has an answer in this world, except for this one, what is our logical conclusion? Either deny that desire or conclude that the answer to that desire lies beyond this world. It sounded like from past posts, despite you having spent all this time arguing religion with me and having admitted you have had this hobby for years, you are going with the former conclusion.

You and Mr. Garvey keep (purposefully) making the same logical errors: that Atheism is making an assertion about the origin of the universe, and that god did it or god didn't do it are the only possible responses to the question.

They aren't. And you know that.

Here's proof. Imagine we are walking and in a store window we see a giant jar full of gumballs. I tell you that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar, and say, "you agree, right?".

What do you reply?

So you think there are other possibilities other than 1) there is a God or 2) there is no God? Please share what these are. I suspect your response will reveal that you are defining God wrong.

Answer the question first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, the argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity fallacies. The fact that you can't imagine an alternative and no one can disprove it with evidence is not sufficient proof to believe a thing.

There are nearly an infinite number of things you can believe with this standard of logic. Like Russell's teapot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

(yes, another link, and they are called citations)

The unraveling of your teapot theory is right in the article under criticism: Philosopher Brian Garvey argues that the teapot analogy fails with regard to religion because, with the teapot, the believer and non-believer are simply disagreeing about one item in the universe and may hold in common all other beliefs about the universe, which is not true of an atheist and a theist. Garvey argues that it is not a matter of the theist propounding existence of a thing and the atheist simply denying it – each is asserting an alternative explanation of why the cosmos exists and is the way it is: "the atheist is not just denying an existence that the theist affirms – the atheist is in addition committed to the view that the universe is not the way it is because of God. It is either the way it is because of something other than God, or there is no reason it is the way it is."

Exactly what I have been saying about you and your non-neutral stance. You still think you are neutral, I get it, but you are not. The only difference is you can't see your lack of neutrality. Everyone lives life based on a set of assumptions about reality. I live my life assuming Christianity, you live yours assuming either no God or an unknowable and therefore irrelevant God (because, as I said, there will be no new evidence of God and you've already found all the current ones unsatisfactory). We are both making a positive decision in the direction of how to live our lives, and so we have equal burden of proof. But yet I am still not hearing any positive explanations from you about the burning questions of mankind since the dawn of history. The silence is deafening.

As for incredulity fallacy you keep bringing up, it really isn't what I have been arguing at all. It's not that I can't understand why something is the way it is and therefore my incredulity is the basis of my belief. I am saying that the human race as a whole reaches for beyond this world, not just in trying to explain cosmic phenomenon but in their interior search for meaning. Any one person with a knowledge gap or weird penchant for religion maybe you can chalk up to incredulity fallacy, but a whole species with this trait demands an explanation from you, the atheist. And anyone who denies that a defining characteristic of what makes us human is our search for transcendence and meaning is just...kidding themselves. I am also saying based on all observation, all natural desires in this world correspond to some real object that can satisfy that desire. But yet we have a natural desire for "more" that nothing in this world can satisfy. Here is some observational evidence for you. If every single natural desire has an answer in this world, except for this one, what is our logical conclusion? Either deny that desire or conclude that the answer to that desire lies beyond this world. It sounded like from past posts, despite you having spent all this time arguing religion with me and having admitted you have had this hobby for years, you are going with the former conclusion.

You and Mr. Garvey keep (purposefully) making the same logical errors: that Atheism is making an assertion about the origin of the universe, and that god did it or god didn't do it are the only possible responses to the question.

They aren't. And you know that.

Here's proof. Imagine we are walking and in a store window we see a giant jar full of gumballs. I tell you that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar, and say, "you agree, right?".

What do you reply?

So you think there are other possibilities other than 1) there is a God or 2) there is no God? Please share what these are. I suspect your response will reveal that you are defining God wrong.

Answer the question first.

On the chance there is any doubt what "the question" is:

Imagine we are walking and in a store window we see a giant jar full of gumballs. I tell you that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar, and say, "you agree, right?".

What do you reply?

[Anonymous]

On the chance there is any doubt what "the question" is:

Imagine we are walking and in a store window we see a giant jar full of gumballs. I tell you that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar, and say, "you agree, right?".

What do you reply?[b]

I already told you that is not a proper analogy. "The teapot analogy fails with regard to religion because, with the teapot, the believer and non-believer are [b]simply disagreeing about one item in the universe and may hold in common all other beliefs about the universe, which is not true of an atheist and a theist."

What is so hard for you to understand? This is not about us arguing about some random gumballs that have no bearing at all on the rest of our lives. You are making up a meaningless argument over a meaningless subject that is self contained. I know that is how YOU view religion and that's why it is a "hobby" for you, detached from the rest of life. But that is not how reality is. What we are really arguing about is the basic premise of life and everything you and I do every single day assumes an answer to that question. If every action you took depended on your belief of whether the number of gumballs is an even of odd number, then WITHOUT even raising the issue, we have both assumed an answer and are acting accordingly on a daily basis. We both have equal burdens of proof, if not to each other, then to ourselves, for justifying the way we live our lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

On the chance there is any doubt what "the question" is:

Imagine we are walking and in a store window we see a giant jar full of gumballs. I tell you that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar, and say, "you agree, right?".

What do you reply?[b]

I already told you that is not a proper analogy. "The teapot analogy fails with regard to religion because, with the teapot, the believer and non-believer are [b]simply disagreeing about one item in the universe and may hold in common all other beliefs about the universe, which is not true of an atheist and a theist."

What is so hard for you to understand? This is not about us arguing about some random gumballs that have no bearing at all on the rest of our lives. You are making up a meaningless argument over a meaningless subject that is self contained. I know that is how YOU view religion and that's why it is a "hobby" for you, detached from the rest of life. But that is not how reality is. What we are really arguing about is the basic premise of life and everything you and I do every single day assumes an answer to that question. If every action you took depended on your belief of whether the number of gumballs is an even of odd number, then WITHOUT even raising the issue, we have both assumed an answer and are acting accordingly on a daily basis. We both have equal burdens of proof, if not to each other, then to ourselves, for justifying the way we live our lives.

You didn't answer the question. Despite multiple requests. Wonder why?

Simply answer the question and I will reply to all your other points.

Imagine we are walking and in a store window we see a giant jar full of gumballs. I tell you that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar, and say, "you agree, right?".

What do you reply?