(December 12, 2020 at 3:37 am)Angrboda Wrote:(December 12, 2020 at 12:18 am)Chas Wrote: Logical proofs are unnecessary and insufficient. What is needed is evidence.
Get back to us when you have some actual evidence of the existence of any gods at all.
I think what you may mean is that there is no empirical evidence. Evidence simpliciter is simply anything which supports the belief in a proposition being true, and I think logical proofs certainly qualify under that definition. Whether it is in some undefined sense better to have empirical evidence than logical proofs as evidence, or even necessary that one's evidence be empirical, is a different matter. I can't help but notice, however, that if one is going to argue that empirical evidence is better or even necessary, the evidence for that proposition will have to take the form of logical proofs, so you're in a bit of a catch-22 situation.
Agreed. Logical proofs are, by their very nature, evidentiary. It's also not immediately apparent that empirical evidence of a sufficiently subtle god is even possible. If Yahweh can cook up an entire universe in under a week, it's not unreasonable to assume that he could also hide his tracks.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
