[Arbitrary]

These discussions are both so terrible. I blame the grammer.

At face value, the statement of "I believe in God" and "I don't believe in God" look nearly identical. Because of their similiarities in the words they use we are fooled into believing they can compared when in fact they share no common ground.

Lets take Person A. At his core he believes in God because he is unwilling to accept that our existence lacks meaning. The idea that a murderer who is never caught need never fear divine punishment is offensive. God must exist so a universe of this nature is not the one we live in.

Person B is an Aethist and a researcher. He doesn't believe in God because that would mean he would have to accept the possibilies of miracles. If miracles are possible than causality will always be in question. Did Effect B happen because of Cause A or was there a miracle? Perhaps the added causalities of a dissipating miracle were the result. Including the added causalities of dissipating miracles into equations is impossible so to keep everything straight God cannot exist.

These two belief systems share no common ground for there to even be a discussion. Even something as basic as what counts as evidence is a no go. The simplicity of "I believe in God" and "I don't believe in God" has duped them both into thinking there can be some sort of dialogue when there really cannot.

And why yes, I am reading Wittgenstein. Thank you.