Tis true, as Gnu Atheists, and non-Gnus who lean somewhat
this direction point out, that in certain varieties of modern logic, one can
prove the non-existence of something, ie, in this case the non-existence of
god.
But wait, that's not all.
At the same time, one can also prove modern logic spinoffs of some
classical arguments for the existence of god. Ask Alvin Plantinga about that. Well,
actually, if one calls Satan perfectly evil, one can prove the existence of
both, if you know from reading some discussions about that. So, yes, Gnus and others, you do get a "baby" with modern logic.
You also get various sorts of "bathwater" that go along with it.
Hence, I still reject these arguments that say, "Hey, I can prove the non-existence of god." You can prove lots of things in modal logic and other modern logic systems which engage in multivariant thinking.
If you want your "baby," please be honest about accepting your "bathwater" at the same time.
2 comments:
NP there.
What if its not so much logic but a pragmatic stance well many religions are mutually exclusive so even if one is true others are totally fabricated human constructions. Furthermore their inherents cannot tell are fabricated.
They all have pretty weak evidence support their claims.
So based on this while I cannot prove God doesn't exist I think it much more likely it is all fabrication.
NP there.
What if its not so much logic but a pragmatic stance well many religions are mutually exclusive so even if one is true others are totally fabricated human constructions. Furthermore their inherents cannot tell are fabricated.
They all have pretty weak evidence support their claims.
So based on this while I cannot prove God doesn't exist I think it much more likely it is all fabrication.
Post a Comment