RE: God is imaginary
December 6, 2010 at 4:38 pm
(This post was last modified: December 6, 2010 at 4:41 pm by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
Quote:It is easy to prove to yourself that God is imaginary. The evidence is all around you. Here are 50 simple proofs:
Unfortunately it's not at all easy or simple. .It it were,it's likely someone in recorded history would have done so. The list makes some unfounded assumptions about the nature of any god(s) EG That he(?) MUST be an interventionist deity along the lines of YHWH. Lack of response, or lack of evidence does not falsify the existence of god. That argument is a basic logical fallacy.(argument from ignorance) That list may provide some valid logical inferences,but none falsify the existence of god(s) THAT is why I'm a 'soft atheist' like most people on this forum) I assert "I do not believe in god(s) due to lack of evidence". I am unable to assert "I do not believe as the existence of god(s) has been falsified" because that statement is untrue.
Perhaps we are using to word 'evidence" in different ways,Wiki gives pretty good explanation of what I mean by"evidence".A skeptic,I reject the notion that logic can guarantee truth. I demand logic be supported by evidence.
Quote:Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.
Many issues surround evidence, making it the subject of much discussion and disagreement. In addition to its subtlety, evidence plays an important role in many academic disciplines, including science and law, adding to the discourse surrounding it.
An important distinction in the field of evidence is that between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth. Many have seen this line to be less-than-clear and significant arguments have arisen over the difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE:
Quote:Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false.[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
Carl Sagan famously criticized the practice by referring to it as "impatience with ambiguity", pointing out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This should not, however, be taken to mean that one can never possess evidence that something does not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
