20 Nov 06
Originally posted by StarrmanWhat do you mean by "God", by "exist" and by "unsupportable"?
Oh please, dj2, are you seriously making the claim he does? Both are equally unsupportable.
I don't believe that God (as defined by most Christians) does not exist precisely because I think that the evidence for, and lack of evidence to the contrary, is significant enough for me to support such a claim.
20 Nov 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not sure what your post means, is there an unintentional double negative in there?
What do you mean by "God", by "exist" and by "unsupportable"?
I don't believe that God (as defined by most Christians) does not exist precisely because I think that the evidence for, and lack of evidence to the contrary, is significant enough for me to support such a claim.
I don't believe a positive claim either for or against the existence of god is supportable.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Nov 06
Originally posted by StarrmanBoth are equally unsupportable.
Oh please, dj2, are you seriously making the claim he does? Both are equally unsupportable.
No they are not. If you say that no little green men exist, you need absolute knowledge to support your claim, but on the other hand you only need sufficient evidence of one single green little man to support the claim that little green men exist.
20 Nov 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerBut when the claim is more specific such as "Little green men are in the room with me now", then I do not need absolute knowledge to disprove it. Also if you present a witness who claims that he/she has been talking to little green men then I could possibly provide sufficient evidence to support a claim that the witness is either lying, deluded or mistaken.
If you say that no little green men exist, you need absolute knowledge to support your claim, but on the other hand you only need sufficient evidence of one single green little man to support the claim that little green men exist.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Nov 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe claim "God does not exist" is a universal one, and thus absolute knowledge of the universe is required to support this claim.
But when the claim is more specific such as "Little green men are in the room with me now", then I do not need absolute knowledge to disprove it. Also if you present a witness who claims that he/she has been talking to little green men then I could possibly provide sufficient evidence to support a claim that the witness is either lying, deluded or mistaken.
20 Nov 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerAgreed, but since you lack that evidence, both remain unsupported.
[b]Both are equally unsupportable.
No they are not. If you say that no little green men exist, you need absolute knowledge to support your claim, but on the other hand you only need sufficient evidence of one single green little man to support the claim that little green men exist.[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Nov 06
Originally posted by StarrmanIf by 'unsupported' you mean 'non-existent' then I disagree, but on the other hand if you have decided that you will accept no evidence for the existence of God, then I could understand what you might be trying to say.
Agreed, but since you lack that evidence, both remain unsupported.
20 Nov 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhat I have and haven't decided is of no import here. I mean unsupported, not non-existent.
If by 'unsupported' you mean 'non-existent' then I disagree, but on the other hand if you have decided that you will accept no evidence for the existence of God, then I could understand what you might be trying to say.