Guybrush

I agree that from the basic point of view, almost any assumption can be true. For example, you should accept the possibility that God exists and you should accept the possibility that God doesn't exist. Generally speaking, if two such assumptions about our world are in direct opposition like the example is (it would be hard to believe that God does and does not exist at the same time), then you should have some criteria which help you pick one over the other.

Much of science is based on such criterias for what can be "true" or not. You have principles like empirical testing to support statements about our world and you have general principles like the law of parsimony which says that when faced with two conflicting hypothesis, the one whose acceptance requires the least amount of new assumptions about our world (sometimes called most "simple") is the preferred hypothesis, not because it has to be true, but because the chances of accepting a hypothesis about our world which is not true is smaller.

I have a real problem with people who seem to have no criteria or who seem to have them, but they're probably along the lines of "I'll believe whatever makes me feel good" or "I'll believe in what I think is most exciting". In my opinion, people should want to have a belief about our world which is as close to the truth as possible. People who don't feel that way should be kept from littering the minds of children. In Norway, I'd like to see critical thinking and criterias for what we should accept as truth or not taught in schools at an early age.

__________________
Something Completely Different