I'm skeptical of the peaceful nature of a religion founded by a warlord; but at this stage we don't know that it's not some nut-job who is trying to capitalise on the ISIS popularity.
(I'm writing from one of the buildings currently in lock-down because of this situation)
Can we not find a better way?
Seriously, what is so magical about Mac build quality?
Worst driver ever.
But perhaps the reason you haven't seen something requiring God is that he's left the universe on overnight whilst it does something that doesn't require interaction...
What I was pointing out was that 'no answer' does not mean 'automatically false'.
But my point is that it is the burden of the claimant to prove their claims true: but only for themselves. It is the burden of the listener to come to their own conclusion. If they need further proof from the claimant, then they should press them for it. If the claimant fails to provide further proof, the listener can ignore the claimant's claims, but still can't disprove it on lack of evidence alone. That is the point I am trying to address.
Instead you add to the stuff you know as things get demonstrated/shown to you to be true. That way you can be reasonably sure that your knowledge is getting closer to the truth over time and that models based on what you know already are more likely to be right.
This is my view of things also. But I do not make any sort of final judgements about things I cannot demonstrate one way or the other. Admittedly I tend to give them a mental grading of how likely they are; but I try not to let that guide my reaction when I find someone who is sure about it. I would rather be wrong because I failed to understand something someone said to me, than be wrong because I rejected it out of hand as being impossible.
I am not saying you have to believe what they are saying is true. What I am saying is that what they believe isn't your responsibility, (nor, as some seem to believe, the right of intelligent people).
"Any excuse will serve a tyrant." -- Aesop