I enjoy personally philosophy. That's the main reason I think that way and perhaps am a bit pedantic at times. I like being specific and I just can't help but analyse (and arguably over analyse at times) sometimes.
Now saying you are certain (or even absolutely certain) that Jesus or whatever does not exist is one thing...I can take it lightly and easily see that you simply mean that Jesus for example is PRACTICALLY disproved in the sense he - as a supernatural figure at the very least - is so extremely improbable he perhaps might as well be considered to definitely not exist.
But to say he is definitely DISPROVED or even absolutely disproved I think is simply stating a falsehood. Because he isn't. You can't prove a negative in the sense you cannot absolutely disprove something...
I agree that philosophy can over analyse over complicate and confuse things at times...but sometimes a statement just stand out as obviously flawed to me...
I personally enjoy philosophy so it's hard not to be pedantic sometimes I think (for me and others who enjoy philosophical thinking like me)..
If you say you are absolutely certain that Jesus does not exist that's one thing (but I would still be interested to ask if you really do believe he is 100% disproved).
If, however; you all out claim that he is absolutely disproved then I'd have to say "No he's not.. How is he?".
So I think it's a matter of degree. Sometimes it's pedantic but sometimes the logic is just flawed and I can't help pointing out the negative proof fallacy if I think that that really IS what is being claimed.
EvF
Now saying you are certain (or even absolutely certain) that Jesus or whatever does not exist is one thing...I can take it lightly and easily see that you simply mean that Jesus for example is PRACTICALLY disproved in the sense he - as a supernatural figure at the very least - is so extremely improbable he perhaps might as well be considered to definitely not exist.
But to say he is definitely DISPROVED or even absolutely disproved I think is simply stating a falsehood. Because he isn't. You can't prove a negative in the sense you cannot absolutely disprove something...
I agree that philosophy can over analyse over complicate and confuse things at times...but sometimes a statement just stand out as obviously flawed to me...
I personally enjoy philosophy so it's hard not to be pedantic sometimes I think (for me and others who enjoy philosophical thinking like me)..
If you say you are absolutely certain that Jesus does not exist that's one thing (but I would still be interested to ask if you really do believe he is 100% disproved).
If, however; you all out claim that he is absolutely disproved then I'd have to say "No he's not.. How is he?".
So I think it's a matter of degree. Sometimes it's pedantic but sometimes the logic is just flawed and I can't help pointing out the negative proof fallacy if I think that that really IS what is being claimed.
EvF
