(December 21, 2016 at 4:27 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(December 21, 2016 at 3:47 pm)Asmodee Wrote: …Your signature is an "argument" for the existence of God, not "evidence" for its existence. If you change out "God" for "An intelligent, living universe", that's all it takes to make it "evidence" for a living, intelligent universe. That makes it an argument, not evidence.At the risk of bickering over semantics, all I see in my signature line is a list of common observations. I do not see how these are any different from more specific observations like:
I have a fever.
I’m vomiting.
And I have a sore throat.
That’s the evidence. Of what is it evidence? I apply inductive reasoning to what is evident and conclude that most likely I have the flu. Similarly, the theologian sees some very general observations about the world and by applying reason reaches the conclusion that something remarkably similar to what one would expect of a Supreme Being exists. These are as follows:
1) Some things change.
2) Only things that actually exist can cause change.
3) Some things that do not exist now could potentially exist later.
4) Some things that do exist now could potentially cease to exist later.
5) The actions of unconscious things produce regular results.
So rather than simply argue over the meaning of words perhaps it would be more fruitful for you to state you objections with the above. Do you disagree with any of those observations?
I'm not sure how any of those 'observations' get you to a god.
Especially a specific god.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.