Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Well, yeah, but I'm trying to keep it simple. We are not all quantum physicists on this forum  |
Bah, humbug. Accuracy is important. An arguement that results in a true conclusion, but includes inaccurate premises or logic, is not a good arguement for the conclusion.
Quote:
|
This doesn't really have anything to do with what I said. I said just because something is reasonable does not mean it is true. Even if it's reasonable to believe 2 different things, that does not mean one, or both, of those beliefs are true.
|
The two different things in question where of the form "A" and "not A". It is often an axiom of logic that one and only one of "A" and "not A" is True -- this is sometimes described as the law of excluded middle. I was noting that reasonableness does not act like "truth" in that it does not obey this law of excluded middle.
A demonstration that "it is reasonable to believe in god" does not imply that "it is unreasonable to not believe in god". So even if the arguement given originally did not have holes, it doesn't show that there is no god in any way shape or form. It simply shows that it is reasonable to believe in god.
It seemed, at least to me, that a "proof" for "X" is an attempt to say "not X is false". The original "proof" for "got exists" is, at best, a demonstration that "it is reasonable to believe in god" -- it does not demonstrate that it is unreasonable to not believe in god, even if it was a flawless arguement.
I'm not disagreeing with your conclusions. I am commenting on your content.