Reply #95: Sorry, here is the link.

[Meldread]

I thought I linked Reductio ad absurdum. Well, there is the link now. Also here is the link for most logical fallacies.


"IMO, the circumstantial evidence is not just strong, it is overwhelming to the point of PROOF, to me at least. Where I on a jury, and I had to decide that god(s) exist, or not, I would vote not."
The circumstantial evidence for the existence of all known current Gods, I would agree is rather overwhelming, and I too would vote the same way you would. However, we aren't really talking about them as opposed to God(s) in general. We have not yet conceived of everything that is possible.

"I can not live that way, I will positively assert (before it happens) "The sun WILL rise in the East tomorrow". Again, I live by the "prove me wrong" philosophy."
I would not encourage you to live that way, either. It is rather unproductive. As I stated before, though, the existence of a God(s) is not comparable to most other things, it is equivalent to your example of the Matrix. You cannot prove nor can you disprove that we are living in some type of simulation.

I understand you living by the "prove me wrong" philosophy, but I should point out that I have not made any claims - I do not disagree with your statement on it's face. In fact, I agree to a large extent, the difference is that you are the one making the claim to the non-existence of God. I don't understand what I would have to prove? In a nut shell that is where we part ways, you seem to act as if there is definitive proof to verify your claim. I agree with your claim, and say that your claim is highly likely, but also point out that your claim can never be proved to absolute certainty. After all, if your claim could be proved with absolute certainty there would be no Theists and there would be no debate. So in a sense you are choosing to place faith into something that may or may not be true - there is a lot of leeway to be incorrect.

You live by the "prove me wrong" philosophy, and I live by the "burden of proof lays on the shoulders of the one who makes the claim". It is very much like criminal court, and the burden of proof lays on the prosecutor to prove the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

What I would like to know is how you logically rationalize (your thought process) to the point of saying, 'There can be no higher power, ever, even one that has yet to be thought of.' I am trying to understand your reasoning, but every time I make the attempt it is like running into a brick wall - I simply can't find a way to logically do what you have done. …and frankly it is driving me nuts. :crazy: I want to understand how you have arrived to your conclusion, and I just can't figure it out.