RE: One sentence trump for everyone
March 5, 2011 at 10:58 am
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2011 at 11:07 am by reverendjeremiah.)
(March 5, 2011 at 10:40 am)theVOID Wrote: The absurdity of the idea isn't relevant, neither is the truth of his existence/non-existence, what matter is what is reasonable to believe given the evidence available - There is no evidence for any malevolent deities, nothing what-so-ever indicating that one exists and the universe is not better explained by one than it is by his absence, therefore there is not reasonable to believe in one - If it is not reasonable to believe in this deity then any doubts raised regarding his non-existence are also not reasonable.
Thus, I can say that beyond all reasonable doubt, such a being does not exist.
Keep in mind 'beyond reasonable doubt' does not mean 'necessarily'. A parallel case might be a trial, A man is accused of murdered his wife, the murder weapon has his prints on it and he was known to have threatened her, the neighbours testified that they were having an extremely heated argument prior to the event, the man's defence is that "someone was sick of us arguing so he put a knife in my hand and stabbed her with it" - There is however no evidence of this person existing and no reason to believe he does exists, the situation is not better explained by this mystery man it is made worse - This is still a doubt over the guilt of the man murdering his wife, but this doubt is NOT a reasonable one.
Any time you are not talking about necessity you leave open the potential for doubt, this doesn't make the doubts reasonable.
Well said, and I agree with you on all points. Perhaps you are even correct about wether absurdity is relevant in this case. Your example highlights my intentions of this discussion. Basically this discussion is a mix of the Epicurian "problem of evil" along with mankind inability to be 100% certain of anything. Anyone who is a fan of Sagan and Dawkins are well aware that they both said that you could not be 100% sure of anything, sure it may be possible, but is it probable? dawkins said something like: on a scale of one to ten, one being 100% god belief and ten being 100% atheist, I would land somewhere on 9, as I am unable to be 100% sure of things like this. Now I agree with him on that point, and I land on that 9 with him. That one point difference to me is what this topic is about. Of course the burdon of proof is on my shoulders, but how do you prove something that has the power to ensure it could not be proven solely for the purpose of malevolence and spreading confusion? Its a great conversation piece, but do not think I actually believe, nor want to worship a malevolent being. If said malevolent entity existed, why worship it?
(March 5, 2011 at 10:53 am)theVOID Wrote: I've essentially answered all of that in my other response, you are making the conceptual error of equating 'necessarily' with 'beyond all reasonable doubt', a valid comparison would be equating 'necessarily' with 'beyond all doubt'
The way you are using the term 'beyond all reasonable doubt' makes the term 'reasonable' completely redundant.
Why is it not okay to want to know beyond a reasonable doubt? Why is it not okay to ask "can we ever be 100% sure about anything?" Im not sure if I am following you on this. Could you break it down better for me?
