(March 24, 2013 at 12:36 am)jstrodel Wrote: Put it in formal logic. You will get something like this:
1. This person claims to have experience God
2. if someone claims to experience God because God does not exist, they are hallucinating
3. This person is hallucinating (MP 1,2)
That is about as logical as it gets. You are presupposing that God does not exist in order to justify describing my behavior as hallucinating.
Well, yeah. It's rational to assume that god does not exist, since no one can produce evidence for his existence, including the people who claim to "experience him." So far, the number of people who claim to have experienced god and were imagining the whole thing is 100%. The number who have been able to verify to anyone else that they did is 0%.
That's pretty logical to me.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould
