(November 30, 2022 at 10:43 am)Gwaithmir Wrote:(November 29, 2022 at 11:17 pm)Objectivist Wrote: Of course, the theist will take issue with premise two. He'll say that everything that exists is evidence for a god but that could only be the case if one assumes that a god created it in the first place. D'oh!
Perhaps [P2] should be: There is no evidence for God which will stand up to rational scrutiny.
I don't think there is any other kind of evidence. Evidence that does not stand up to rational scrutiny isn't evidence. This is what gets me. They place their god in another realm outside of this one that we all live in and experience in which everything is subject to the law of identity and then want to debate its existence. If this god exists outside of the law of identity then it is outside the reach of logic. I think it's completely dishonest to do this.
"Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind, and a step that travels unlimited roads."
"The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see."
"The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see."
