|
Halx, you should invite Kev to this thread.
I usually put it something like this:
1. God is supernatural by definition.
2. There can be no scientific evidence for the supernatural, if there were it would be natural.
3. That for which there is no scientific evidence cannot be logically assumed to exist.
4. Therefore god's existence cannot logically be assumed.
It's not airtight—there's a tiny bit of semantic wiggle room as far as the supernatural thing—but overall it holds up pretty well.
Just FYI, the theistic Ontological and Teleological arguments are demonstrably fallacious. They aren't an example of logic, they're an example of parroting old and debunked arguments. It's a shame Anselm and Pascal weren't alive in a time when they could have posted online. I would have enjoyed watching Thunderf00t's rebuttal videos.
|