Supe
Is not the point that the theist has no factual basis, practice or not, to base the existence of go on? By never being able to demonstrate even a discernable effect attributable to none other than god almighty exclusively, does that not leave the theist at somewhat of a loss?
well, no, its not the point
behind theistic claims is a process as indicated by normative descriptions in scripture
as such the claims are discernible by those that apply the procedure
Not really. If we did have binoculars in the story (which we don't) it would be the theist refusing to look through them, I think.
you want to suggest that an atheist has a position for directly perceiving the non-existence of god?
However in the analogy there can be no binoculars because god is, by theistic definition, not observable with the tools of science - like telescopes.
I think you are mixing metaphors
for you analogy to be analogous you would have to first establish that the theist and the atheist are on the same epistemological footing.
IOW you would have to establish that discerning the nature of god is not subject to any prerequisites (such as practice based on theory for instance)
Since there are literally tons of normative descriptions in scripture, I think that would be a very difficult case to establish.
To shift back to your fire on the island scenario, to make it share parallels with atheist vs theist showdown, I would suggest that one person has binoculars and the other person refuses to look through them
(IOW one person is applying the practice and the other person is standing outside of the practice)
and it is this difference that leads to the difference in values or conclusion
IOW I am not saying that god can be seen through binoculars
I am saying that the claim for seeing god rests on prerequisites (just like claims in empirical science rest on prerequisites). So to make your analogy analogous you would have to introduce something about the fire on the island that makes verification dependent on prerequisites (like say, the prerequisite of seeing through a pair of binoculars for instance)
There is no way to get a closer look at the island. But we're being asked to just accept that the house is on fire even though we see no smoke or flames, just something that may or may not suggest one (a dim orange glow).
You notice that I never deny the possibility of a fire. It certainly could be a smoldering log in the fireplace, ready to fall out and engulf the house. The point is, I don't know and neither does our character of the mighty certainty.
If you insist that both participants be on the same epistemological footing then immediately your analogy bears no parallel to the claims of theists – on the contrary, as it stands, your analogy could be a successful tool in explaining what some scientists tend to do – namely make unverifiable supernatural claims. (eg Big Bang theory, the radius of the Milky way, Third law of thermodynamics, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, square root of minus 1, punctuated equilibrium evolutionary theory etc etc)
