Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyWolf
Well, without getting into the General Semantic definition of abstractions of reality (we can never experience reality, only the abstractions thereof provided by our nervous system, and hence only an approximation thereof), there are logical fallacies with your first 4 statements. I'm not going to argue the existence/non-existence of God either, but here are my issues with your assertions:
A) You can't assume there is no evidence for God without defining what would constitute evidence of God, and then proving that that evidence does not exist. Secondly, lack of evidence never precludes arguing for or against a particular theory, particularly when there is little hope of ever coming up with evidence (string theory comes to mind).
B) You implicitly assume that the only purpose of faith in God is to establish his existence. There may well be multiple reasons for faith, many of which may not follow directly from the existence of God.
C) Simply... WHY?
D) Of course you can. If something, by it's existence, must produce an effect which may be seen or measured, then logically, you can disprove its existence, by disproving the existence of that effect.
E) I can't dispute this until I understand what a logical advantage is.
|
A) If we were simply able to define what is proof and what isn't about ANYTHING, then the whole world would be up in the air. Nothing would ever be certain. I think this argument is the equivalent of a plane dropping flares to ward off missiles. Luckily, there is a dictionary definition for proof.
B) You read that wrong. Think about it. Faith is basically belief in something that isn't apparent. If it were apparent, it wouldn't need faith.
C) In any argument or trial, the plaintiff must present evidence.
D) Going back to the evidence conundrum... who says that something must have a measurable effect to exist? Who says that an effect is evidence of existence?
E) Logical advantage is simply "what is more logical"