(October 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)trmof Wrote: I think that you are taking standards which apply to things we can scientifically test for and applying them to things which we can't scientifically test for. You're discounting that any number of things about the universe could be true simply because we aren't currently able to measure them, which is a fine skeptical analysis, but lacking as a philosophical analysis and is the reason philosophy exists in the first place. There is no reason to dicount one form of evidence simply because another form is better. I would argue that THIS places limits on our ability to examine what is and isn't true.
Defining god as "something we can't scientifically test for" is special pleading to begin with. Any insane notion could be true, but the question here is establishing that it is true and we won't lower the standard of proof where that is concerned. And having a more reliable method of verification is a very good reason discount one that isn't reliable.
