(July 9, 2012 at 11:42 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: Hello Clive, I appreciate the time you took to reply, but despite understanding symbolic logic a little, I am not sure here what you are claiming, or how you are backing this up. (for one, what does "c" refer to, and what does 0 < c < 1 mean?
Also, if you are defining "weak atheism" the same way as I define agnosticism--simply as not knowing if God exists, we may not disagree here on anything but terminology.
I would also say in an ultimate sense that there is evidence for God, it is just non-verbal--experiential or intuitive. I believe if one seeks God from a pure heart, one will find out at some point in their life if God exists.
I would also say that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in a case in which we should expect to have more evidence than we do
Thought experiment time....
If I took a baby tomorrow and fed it intravanously (no taste input), strapped it down (no touch input) in a perfectly dark (no sight input), oderless (no smell input) and soundproof room (no hearing); how would this person discover your God? Imagine that we could let loose this being as an adult into the world with no human knowledge history. This being could conceivably re-discover all the laws of nature, but could never discover your God without a Bible or someone to indoctrinate him/her.
