Again, maybe you should stop trying to tell me what I say or believe, or actually get it right and in context.
In Message 315 you stated:
"If it is impossible to get the evidence why should it EVER be considered?"
This seemed to be a general statement, but perhaps I am missing some important context. From what I have read, the worldview you are describing is a very conflicted one. On one hand you advocate the view that we should not consider things for which there is no evidence. At the same time, you are professing a personal belief in things that can not be evidenced. I understand that you are NOT prescribing the way in which we SHOULD think. I am merely discussing the way in which you DO think.
Am I getting this right? Am I missing something?
If God planted the finger prints we can see the result, the finger prints are there. But we have no way to observe, test, inspect the actual act itself, the act of God planting the finger print.
This example keeps getting hung up on the letter of the law so let's move back to one of your earlier examples. If I am reading it correctly, you believe that God inspires people to have certain thoughts, such as not to step in front of a bus or a sudden inspiration to run a specific clinical test. You also seem to indicate that we have no way of evidencing this inspiration. So why do you even consider that this inspiration even occurs since you have no evidence for it, or are you saying that you do believe in things for which there is no evidence?