(July 8, 2012 at 8:06 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: I can state that God does not exist due to the lack of evidence. If you think there is evidence that contradicts my position let me see it and perhaps I'll review my position. I won't hold my breath.
The principle seems to be, "If we lack evidence for the truth of p, then it is appropriate to conclude not-p."
Very well, then. Suppose we lack evidence for p. Then there is no evidence for not-p; for if there were evidence for not-p, we would have evidence that p is false and thus would not lack evidence for the truth of p.
Therefore, since we lack evidence for the truth of not-p, it is appropriate to conclude not-(not-p), which is p.
Therefore, the principle above entails contradiction and is therefore irrational.
So either my proof is wrong, or you didn't use that principle, or you're using an irrational principle. Which is it?
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
