(April 2, 2014 at 7:53 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: I know, that these arguments do not prove god, it just justifies believing in god without evidence, but I don't think we can just let that slide. How can you believe in a god without evidence, and be called rational? Sure, we may believe in the existence of other minds without evidence, but the existence of a god is not nearly as obvious, nor serves any practical relevance. You can't be justified in a belief in god because 'it's obvious to me', I think it needs to be obvious to everyone in order for it to be justified. If god's existence is 'just obvious', why is it not obvious to a large percentage of the population? If there were a god, wouldn't there be evidence of his existence? If so, why do they need to resort to making certain beliefs justified without evidence in order to make their case?By that logic, your definition of evidence must be obvious to everyone in order to be justified, but it isn't. You presumably don't consider ancient texts to be evidence. Some people do.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: August 16, 2025, 11:03 pm
Thread Rating:
Is evidentialism a dead philosophy?
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)