Both our guesses are provisional right?
I believe I’ve offered some in other posts.
I have beliefs, but as far as I know they are supported by objective evidence. I believe the sun will come up tomorrow based on past history and no current reports that it is about to go supernova on us. I believe the next election will be a dirty little mess based on the past history of those involved. I believe my Beloved will feed the cat this morning based on past history and because Zippy is currently licking her eyelids in an attempt to wake her up.
Do you know what doesn’t require objective evidence?-blind faith, and blind faith is not the same thing as belief.
But with his, you keep looking for the answers, and with yours, you don’t.
No I didn’t think you were. Part of my reaction in this thread is a holdover from the other recent thread.
and, although I get the feeling I may regret this, could you link to your response to Liberal?
I hope I’ve made it clear in a previous post that I’m not arguing that we can know God loves us.
as I stated in my response to BB2.
I don’t believe that’s what was going on here and it’s not what I am addressing.
ftr I’m not saying “nobody can agree on common definitions of evidence and logic” but it is true that sometimes we don’t.
In order to even entertain the question in the OP an atheist has to assume a belief they don’t actually hold, isn’t that correct? Haven’t atheists in this thread already acknowledged that?
I’m not refusing to acknowledge definitions of logic or evidence. I’m flat out saying that the argument offered by atheists is not logical according to the text book definition. Clear enough?
Perhaps you could provide some objective evidence that your beloved loves you in return.
So you don’t believe in God but you believe in mind reading? Oaky Doky.
Kinda shoots your logic argument all to hell doesn’t it?
If you state that something is unknowable, how could we assume anything but that you are not looking to know it, based on the objective evidence of your words and the dictionary definition of “unknowable”?
by using the dictionary definition you speak of and reading my posts.
something that is beyond the limits of our human experience and understanding right now, doesn’t have to remain so does it? Several of my posts indicate that.
Perhaps you define “unknowable” as never being knowable but I do not. Before you try reading my mind again and making fallacious statements like that one you should think about it a bit more.
And maybe you should read the dictionary definition you are quoting. Nowhere in that definition that you quote is the term right now-when you insert it, the definition changes from unknowable to unknown. You are therefore creating a definition that is not in the dictionary.
That may make you feel better about your statement but given my posts and a minimum effort to understand them, your statement remains just as fallacious.
Since the definition I quoted doesn’t contain a time frame **at all ** including your implied “and never will be” then “for now” is just as valid a use of that definition as yours. My quote that you responded to contains the term provisional which by definition means
You are in error. Can’t you just say so?
No, I think I(and the dictionary) will just have to agree to disagree with you.
If that’s how you want it. I’ll keep that in mind the next time you insinuate intellectual dishonesty on my part.
btw, I notice you ignored my request for objective evidence that your beloved loves you in return.
Did you have a response?
I insinuated nothing-I merely pointed out where you and the dictionary parted company.
Direct testimony from Beloved to me, and(if you want to get petty) she is willing to sign a statement to the effect. She has put up with my constant snoring, and has kept me on a diet that prolongs my life, despite an insurance policy that would pay off handsomely if I left this mortal coil. She has stayed to watch my dvd of Xanadu multiple times instead of going off to read a book. Need more?
Oh, my. If this isn’t proof of love, I don’t think anything is. 
To be fair, it could also be evidence of an S&M type of relationship.
I was referring to this
I’ve also correctly pointed out that “unknowable” by itself has no time stipulations either way. Those are supplied within the context of it’s use. The context of my use was abundantly clear and yet you’d rather ignore that than admit a mistake. It doesn’t matter to me…I’m just saying.
No that’s just right. You might notice that this is exactly the kind of evidence a believer might give you and you would summarily dismiss as inadequate. This provides no clear objective proof of her true motives. You believe this is love because it serves your preferred belief system and I expect brings you comfort and joy to believe so. I sincerely hope you are exactly right. Love is much better than any alternative IMO.
I might point out that more than one man or woman has believed the same evidence you do only to discover they were wrong.
Excuse me while I pick my jaw up from the floor. A believer can provide sworn testimony or a signed statement directly from God? In what possible way are you defining “exactly” and “evidence” here?
BTW, “unknown” and “unknowable” still have different meanings in every dictionary I’ve found so far.
You can cite your beloveds behavior and interpret that to mean love based on your own subjective concept of love. What you cannot do is provide conclusive objective evidence for her true motives, or even that your concept of love is indeed love.
If a believer says “I felt God’s love when I read John 3:16” you’ll dismiss it as nonsense. If a believer says “I felt God’s love when when I saw a sunrise”, the same, etc etc. No amount of agreement by other believers will be accepted by you as objective conclusive evidence. The same goes for your subjective concept of love and your evidence.