(July 1, 2014 at 1:06 am)Rhythm Wrote: Which, again, and for the same reason - would be irrational. But I want to mention here that a persons life has ceased to be evidence, and is now just an "indicator" -in your statements. This is the type of stuff I like to see. Thank you.
You see, no matter how you employ this line of reasoning it is irrational, because the premise and assumptions don't lead to the conclusions. The reason it keeps happening this way has nothing to do with the assumptions. You could put anything in this line of reasoning and all you would get back is garbage. "If you found that I was right" is to say that "if I found out that no god has blessed his life (that's my claim..that's what I would be right about.I am claiming that my life is blessed...because there is no god - that no god has the power to do that, that blessing my life is the sort of thing that no god will, and can do..on and on - that go god's blessings in my life is an indicator of no god's existence. A real and palpable force) - I would abandon belief in god" doesn't even make sense.
I have been asking you whether or not you would accept your line of reasoning - as support of my position. If I argued to you, of my position - using your lines..........do you think that you might be able to pick it apart? Not my position....I'm accepting yours as true to reach conclusions, you can do the same to mine. The argument.
Firstly, I was using "evidence" and "indicator" interchangeably. Why is this irrational? If I see evidence in someone's life that leads me to investigate his beliefs and become an atheist because of that, of course I would give up my theist beliefs. That makes perfect sense. As far as me accepting my own line of reasoning from you as a reason for you being an atheist - since an atheist only deals with natural explanations, I would probably look for natural reasoning from you. If you claimed that it was a supernatural situation, then I would look for supernatural evidence.
