(January 23, 2010 at 4:33 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: [fr0d0's failure to answer my point was here]
My point is that as far as I'm concerned you've completely failed to explain how you can find out what God 'isn't' without first defining what he 'is', so my point is a valid one that it's more to do with things giving evidence, things evincing, that things being in the 'is not' category.
A grapefruit is in the 'is not' if the mark in the sandpit is clearly not made from a grapefruit, but the grapefruit has fuck-all help evidincing the matter. The empty space, the mark, in the sandpit of what 'is not' (or 'was not') there is only evidence of what really was there because the mark is familiar in some way! In order for a hand mark in a sandpit to evince (give evidence) for a hand being there then we have to have observed the existence of hands in the first place! Some other random object such as a grapefruit that also is in the 'is not' part of the category - despite also being fuck-all to do with the matter is of no help because it evidences nothing!
How on earth can 'what X is not' help the matter of 'what X IS' whatsoever until you have any idea what this 'X' is that you are talking about? In this case 'God'.
It's the evincing that matters. You constantly contradict yourself... you say that on the one hand the whole observable universe is evidence for God, but on the other hand you say there can be no evidence!!
It's the evincing (giving evidence, giving indication of the validity of) that matters.
EvF
