(October 4, 2013 at 9:05 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Ad hoc hypothesis. You're shifting the goal posts.tell me where I moved the goal posts. did I ever say it was necessary for God to do that?
Quote:It is more rational. Sorry, but that's life. I'm sorry you can't prove that your god exists, but that's not really my problem. It's more rational to not believe in something until some sort of evidence is shown for it to exist.really? lets put that to the test. we can't experience anything outside our consciousness. it is possible everything we experience is an illusion. reality thus can't be established as true any more than 50/50. since "It's more rational to not believe in something until some sort of evidence is shown for it to exist" it is most rational to not believe in this reality. see how ridiculous your statement is? but let me guess what your response will be. "that doesn't count blah blah blah... special pleading blah blah blah."
Quote:It's certainly more rational than believing in everything anyone can imagine until it's possible to totally disprove it.no it's not. believing a proposition is false without evidence is just as bad as believing it's true without evidence. likewise, believing it's irrational without evidence is just as bad as believing it's rational without evidence. if there's no evidence for or against a proposition, both claims of knowledge are equally plausible and the most rational position is neutral skeptic or ignorance.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
-Galileo
