It could be named, in your honor,"The kosta50 Stove Top Proof for the Existence of God".
You wrote:
Unlike those who claim "spiritual knowledge," I can show you how I know and if you have any doubts you can try it yourself. Such as "don't touch the hot stove top, but if you don't believe me, go ahead!"
As per Hume and the Problem of Induction, you cannot show how you know because you are relying here on the inductive principle, i.e., the assumptions that the past predicts the future. i.e., our past experience with hot stove tops, and two, the belief that nature is uniform - that the future is like the past. But induction is not made by reason. It relies on premises, on which there is no logical basis for affirming on the basis of past experiences that even probability is true of the natural order. The principle of induction is thus left without a foundation and is philosophically arbitrary. The bottom line is that reasoning itself rests upon the presupposition of faith and collapses arbitrary without it.
You stated earlier that
.. it's valid criticism. rejecting claims that cannot be backed with evidence is rational and justifiable.and
Our proofs must be compatible with our nature. We can't presume something exists unless we have evidence of it that is not only in our heads, but clearly demonstrable directly or indirectly.
Your reliance on the inductive principle violates your own standard of evidence and rational justification here because, again, "Induction as a method cannot be justified using induction, nor deduction, or therefore at all by pure reason".
However, the uniformity of nature is perfectly compatible with Christian theism because in the Christian worldview the Sovereign Creator God has revealed to us in Scripture that we can count on regularities in the created world, and because of this God-governed regularity in creation, the scientific enterprise is possible and even fruitful.
Now if the Christian worldview is compared with the atheist world view, which one comports with the inductive principle and thus provides the preconditions for science, language, learning, and any intelligible human experience? It is certainly not atheism. Atheism's view of reality cannot provide a coherent reason for what all your reasoning takes for granted. Consequently, it is reasonable to believe in God and entirely unreasonable not believe in God, for God's existence is the precondition of all reasoning whatsoever.
Cordially,
And thereby we can learn from experience not to touch a hot stove and even what a hot stove is.
It is those things that run contrary to that regularity that we term “miracles” and that we cannot count on from past experience.
LOL, please, I see enough comedy on a daily basis.
As per Hume and the Problem of Induction you cannot show how you know
I can show you how I came to know and how the world, with an occasional exception (for reasons that are perfectly natural), comes to know the same thing.
If you put your hand on a red-hot stove top you will feel excruciating pain—unless there is something terribly wrong with your nervous system, and there is no trickery involved, because we are all "wired" the same way. It's not a "guess', "belief", "hope", "revelation", etc., it's a fact.
the assumptions that the past predicts the future
That is only half the story. The principle is based on probabilities, not certainties and that reflects the real world. If you develop dementia, you may forget that hot stove tops are hot, otherwise all things being equal with you mentally you won't. Now, what is a chance of developing dementia, that is also a probability which increases with predisposing factors.
There is no magic in this world. So far, nothing supernatural has ever been discovered.
The bottom line is that reasoning itself rests upon the presupposition of faith and collapses arbitrary without it.
There is a difference between confidence based on evidence and blind faith. Faith that is not based on verifiable, repeatable evidence is based on hope and nothing more. It's a shot in the dark.
Your reliance on the inductive principle violates your own standard of evidence and rational justification here because...
Don't get too hung up on Wikipedia as your source of wisdom, but try to think for yourself. You are telling me that my proposition to touch the hot stove top is bound to fail because it "violates" some philosophical principle? Get real. LOL.
However, the uniformity of nature is perfectly compatible with Christian theism because in the Christian worldview the Sovereign Creator God has revealed to us in Scripture...
Is that a "fact"? Actually it is, by design! Not a divine design, but human design. The world fits the Christian story, like all religions do, because the story was built to fit the world.
It's a remarkable feat of mental retro engineering that doesn't reflect anything actually encountered in nature. It is a 20/20 retrovision, something like the Book of Daniel, the very last Old Testament book written (2nd century BC), "predicting" events as if the author lived 400 years earlier.
The ancient Egyptians would have told you that their religion also fits the world perfectly, provided you a priori accept their their imaginative axiomatic beliefs.
The ancient Greeks had a remarkable story that "explains" how the world came about and everything else, love, life, and even afterlife.
Religion offers a hopeful model that has no backing in fact. Unlike science, which offers a working model without a promise. It's easy to see why people gravitate towards the former.
But that doesn't make any religion true, just more desirable (you know, for "what's in it for me" reasons). But if you remove all the "feel good" packaging (blissful afterlife, for example), religion loses it's appeal.