The point of this thread is to post my own currently developed philosophy and see how it holds to everyone's scrutiny. I'm an agnostic theist. I personally believe that God exists, and that objectively, humans can't know if God exists or not. I beleive there are two types of truth, subjective and objective. Subjective truth is true for each individual, due to their own personal experiances, and objective truth is true to all of humanity, so long as the individual observing an objectively true statement agrees on the methods that support the objective fact observed. For example, in Mathematics, one has to set up rules to go by before a problem can be worked out, and via the application of those rules implies that the one using those rules is in agreement with them. In other words, when we use math, we agree to a contract which states that we must follow the rules of math for any conclusion to be valid (we must agree to the rules of logic in order for the logic to work correctly). The reason I make this distinction is because someone can look at a red object and say it is green, simply because they go by thier own rules. Since humanity has agreed that red objects have a characteristic wavelength range in the lower visible spectrum, then the objective truth is that light with frequencies in the lower visible spectrum are red. So a person has to also agree to refer to that color as red too in order to abide with some way to standardize common experiances among all persons. And so we also must agree to make a discinction between our left and right sides of our bodies in the same way. As long as we agree on common things like these, we are in the world of objective truth. We must agree to the definitions of the words we use to communicate for them to mean anything at all. In other words, subjective truth comes first, and objective truth is a consequence of agreements of definitions and rules and the like. Objective truth therefore requires that an individual agree upon the commonalities underlying objectively true arguments. For example, we can say that it is objectively true that the sky is blue because we all agree on the definitions of blue and sky. So if someone believes that "sky" means "the atmosphere on Mars", then the statement "the sky is blue" is not true to them. However, they must conclude that the atmosphere on Earth is blue. This can easily become a problem in semantics, so lets keep in mind that the whole purpose of establishing an objective truth is to make things easier for ourselves, and complicating a fact as simple as "the sky is blue" doesn't make things easier for everyone. So this illustrates the point that it is best to go by the standard definitions and clarify using other words and/or more commonly understood and accepted words when extra clarity is needed. The details of objectively true statements can be followed point by point using its own agreed upon rules of common logic, and so objective truth stands by itself, since it is supported by it's own basic rules and definitions. Objective truth becomes true to an individual (subjectively) so long as he/she agrees on the commonalities. So objective truth is devoid of it's own sentient perception, and behaves deterministically, like a machine or a tool, for those (sentient beings) trained to use it. It is something used to help humanity help itself, it is created by people, and it's used for people. Science is a rigorous manifestation of objective truth. It is founded on basic premises such as the scientific method, and all the conclusions made through its use are the most honest forms of objective truth known to man. Therefore, it is best to regard it as the overall persuit of mankind for truth, and so it is wise to accept the premises and definitions, because even if one were to look at the world with their own definitions, they will still observe the same conclusions (in their own understanding) about the world. For example, if one uses a different word for "blue", then they can still make some statement about the sky (to themself) that means the same thing as the "sky is blue" (to science), much like how a system of particles can be described with any set of coordinates, but all sets of coordinates will still make correct predictions of their movement (for each respective set of coordinates) although the predictions of one set can't be used for a different set. Science can't conclude as to whether God exists or not because it's premises aren't powerful enough, but it is a good thing because its premises are conservative enough for it to be reliable for individuals who use it. For example, Science can't "feel" the existance of God, because science is not a sentient being--it can't perceive things on it's own, only minds (personalities, consciousnesses, awarenesses) can. So therefore, it lacks the ability to "feel", which makes it less powerful at establishing truths. Another example, I can touch a hot plate, and I can feel pain (as long as my nerves are working correctly), and through my perception of that feeling, I can conclude truths to myself, such as "it is true to me that don't desire to touch a hot plate" or "it is true to me that I do desire to touch a hot plate". What can I say, some people like to feel pain, and to them it is true that they desire to touch a hot plate. So, science can't conclude (by its definition) one way or the other on such topics where it would require first hand perception (such as that which an awareness would experiance). This is the meaning of objectivity in the first place, something true regardless of personal experiance. It is objectively true that one can touch a hot plate, but not objectively true that that person will like or dislike the feeling, although science can establish probabilities, and we can tally how many people like or dislike things, then the probabilities are true, but no decision one way or another can be objectively made. The descision one way or another is only true subjectively. If there is one thing that science can't explain, it is the mind. In other words, Science can only view the positions and motions of human bodies in space-time (such as an orchestra), but it can't view the thing that is moving those bodies (the will, the soul, the sentient being). So if two musicians are playing a song perfectly, Science can view the system and try to understand how the two dynamical systems (human bodies) interact with each other, but it may run into problems when seemingly faster than light travel occurs between the two systems (i.e. they both start playing the same note at the same time, but there is no Scientific way to explain this since information couldn't have been exchanged that fast between the two systems. When viewed scientifically--i.e. deviod of the knowledge that the two dynamical systems of particles (human bodies) are controlled by something untouchable by science (awareness/the mind/experiance)--humans seem to be undetermined. In other words, Science can't explain what it is that makes human bodies move the way they do--it can't explain the thing that moves them (the mind). With all these clarifications made, now I'd like to say that I agree with all the principles of science, and all the definitions of words common between me and the individual I'm conversing with. Therefore I accept all the conclusions made via science. I can use science to prove things to other people, and if they accept science then they will accept my proof, and I theirs. I recognize that I can't prove the existance of God objectively, but I can prove it to myself with my own supporting personal experiances. Likewise, I could've personally experianced things which subjectively proved the non-existance of God. I can explain my own reasons as a function of my experiances to someone else, but those reasons aren't automatically true to them because they didn't experiance them, I did. Therefore, the existance or non-existance of God can only be proven subjectively, not objectively. In a way, those who come to a full ontological descision aren't being scientific, they are reaching beyond science into something that science can't touch to do so--the perspective and experiances of a sentient being--which I believe is a valid thing to do. In my exposition, I've established that truth comes in two forms--subjective and objective. Subjective truth comes first because it has to do with one's personal experiances, and by definition, one's personal experiances can't be understood objectivly (only you know what you experiance and not anyone else). Objective truth requires a "standardization" of definitions and premises--ss long as one abides by that, then they won't have a problem accepting all the conclusions made by that. I've also shown that due to this idea, God's existance can't be proven objectively, but it can be proven subjectively. Therefore, one can know that God exists, but won't be able to prove it to someone else, and one can know that God doesn't exist, but can't prove it to someone else. One can only convince someone else one way or another, not prove. This means that the burden or proof doesn't rest on atheists or theists, since God's existance can't be objectively proven either way. As far as science is concerned, it can't conclude one way or the other, and God both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, much like how science concludes that Schrodinger's cat must be both dead and alive at the same time (only when we can all open the box will we know the true state of the cat). However, a sentient being can conclude one way or the other, he or she can guess the answer to the problem by reaching into something beyond objective truth. They can draw upon personal experiance--subjective truth--whereas Science can't. So the burden of proof lies on oneself. One can prove to themself as to what they feel is true when all of humanity can't conclude on the true answer objectivly.