Yeah, I think it's a bit of a conundrum that I'm working on in this "god exists" plausibility issue.
I understand where you're coming from with the notion that you can't talk about something which doesn't exist without mentioning that thing when you do.
The example of "my friend doesn't exist" sort of doesn't fit the argument in the same context since it states differently to the opening of assumed existence "my friend".
I think it's really probably nit picking that I'm doing with the non-statement but I couldn't really care less because the statement still has no supporting argument outside human invention.
So I don't care that much.
I'm interested to know why this non-statement is allowed to fly in an 'as-is' condition, by itself, and without any supporting argument.
Why can "god exists" be a scientific statement needing to be disproved?
I understand where you're coming from with the notion that you can't talk about something which doesn't exist without mentioning that thing when you do.
The example of "my friend doesn't exist" sort of doesn't fit the argument in the same context since it states differently to the opening of assumed existence "my friend".
I think it's really probably nit picking that I'm doing with the non-statement but I couldn't really care less because the statement still has no supporting argument outside human invention.
So I don't care that much.
I'm interested to know why this non-statement is allowed to fly in an 'as-is' condition, by itself, and without any supporting argument.
Why can "god exists" be a scientific statement needing to be disproved?
Coming soon: Banner image-link to new anti-islam forum.
