|
What's there to debate? The existence of god is unprovable, therefore any assertions for or against are axiomatic, and as such, they aren't really debatable on their own. Logic never enters the picture- axioms are outside the scope of logic.
Here's a perfectly valid, and logically unassailable proof that god exists:
The universe is too complex to have come about on its own, therefore some manner of god exists. QED
I'm not saying it's that interesting, or even that i find it convincing. It is still a valid proof, as far as logical rigor goes. You can't invalidate the logic there, because if you know anything about formal logic, you know that the logic of that simple proof is bullet proof, like as in IT'S CRIME FIGHTING TIME.
The point where the notion of proof came into matters of pure philosophy was the exact point where people who don't understand what it means to prove something- or even how meaningless a proof can be- got involved.
Once you can get past the need to prove axioms, you can get to the more important and interesting things, like what those axioms actually mean. This is where the real debate should lie, but it's also where shit gets messy and everybody gets pissy for a while and then eventually agrees to disagree, or implicitly agrees to disagree.
|