(August 10, 2013 at 12:43 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:(August 10, 2013 at 12:30 pm)Theo Zacharias Wrote: Again, you're avoiding my question about the article on Wikipedia, i.e. whether you agree or not about the false dilemma example on the article.
The false dilemma issue you seem so concerned about can be disputed via the absence of evidence argument.
Are you saying that you don't agree with the article in Wikipedia that say that "If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false" is a false dilemma? Don't afraid to say that because Wikipedia can be wrong (although very rare). Fyi, I agree with the article. Do you agree or not. You seem to say that there statement is refuted by another article. So you don't agree?
The article on Wikipedia about "Evidence of absence" is actually does not support your position. It's said that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". You said that there is no evidence that God exist (absence of evidence), hence it's a proof that God does not exist (evidence of absence). So what you said before is the same as saying that absence of evidence is the same with evidence of absence. The article on Wikipedia disagree with that. So you don't agree with this article on Wikipedia too?
