Quote:
Originally Posted by Halx
A) There exists no evidence for god, therefore it is impossible to argue for or against his existence.
- This, to me, is the most logical statement to be made.
|
The problem here is that for theologians, the existence of God is assumed (I think). This doesn't make it any more or less a non-debate.
Quote:
B) If there were evidence for god, then faith would no longer be necessary. Therefore, god must exist without evidence.
- This is what I call an unlosable argument. A notion is introduced that, by definition, cannot be disputed. This does not prove a point at all, but makes it impossible to oppose.
- An unlosable argument is not a won argument, simply because the object of proof can be replaced by a wildcard.
|
I don't think this follows through. If God came down from the heavens to leave a message to us all, and somehow demonstrated he was a godly being (say, by doing a number of "miracles" or astounding achievements in the blink of an eye), only to return to heaven, we would have evidence of God, but we would still need faith. Faith isn't merely the hope of God existing (as I said, it is often a given); it is the hope of specific outcomes and a trust in a system of values.
Also, faith isn't exclusive territory of the religious or spiritual. Many had faith in the economy before 2008. That's just one example.
Quote:
C) The burden of proof is on the party making the positive claim.
- The real question is who is making the positive claim. Is it the party claiming the existence of something that cannot be proved? Is it the party claiming the non-existence of something that cannot be proved?
|
I really don't think the question of God is ultimately a matter of proof. Like I said, I don't think theologians are particularly concerned about proving the existence of God.
Quote:
D) You cannot disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist.
- This is the most confounding point I can make. It wraps back into the unlosable argument point.
|
This based on the assumption that God doesn't exist.
Quote:
E) The logical advantage belongs to the party that holds the argument that CAN be disproved, but isn't.
- This is my opinion, but I would like someone to disagree with it.
|
But how can a logical advantage belong to a party that has no means to apply logic? I disagree with you on the basis that the scientific method is constantly seeking to prove and disprove as they build upon and correct balances in what we call knowledge. Theology has no interest in such a thing. It's more interested in exploring religious traditions: essentially an examination of moral and ethical behaviours amongst groups and individuals. Comparing the scientific community to the theological community isn't very interesting. I think the source of conflict comes from a broader social problem of mingling cultures both domestically and internationally, in addition to rapid change and mass communication. In other words, I don't think the problem is a religious/scientific one so much as it is a cultural/social one.
What is logical to me is basically that which "adds up." It is the application of reason to determine what is true and what is false. Its real function is in determining corollaries.
I see no value in applying logic to the question of whether God exists.