“Asking for proof/evidence is a perfectly legitimate precursor to employing ones powers of reasoning!”
Yes, that sounds right.
But only when we acknowledge the limits of proof.
For example, can you prove to me, or to yourself, that what you see in front of you is not a hallucination?
Here’s an interesting question. Regarding good will.
Good will is a powerful topic, for one thing because I don’t think it’s ever been reasonably acknowledged to be anything other than a desirable quality fully consistent with a good moral code.
Here’s the question:
Does the man who questions God’s existence have the same good will as he who doesn’t? Where good will is defined as derived from love.
Keep in mind, both men have equal claim to be seeking truth.
But it seems only one can claim to desire love.
No, I would concede that you might be hallucinating. (Yes, and then you might draw a pistol and... That proves nothing. In good conscience, I must steadfastly maintain that I have no means of proving to you that you are not hallucinating me.)
Yes! This is what the skeptic does: He concedes that some questions are unanswerable, because data is lacking and/or because our computational skills are limited.
The theist, on the other hand...
Regards,