3 ms·
Great rebuttal. > But this logic falls apart if one assumes there is one true deity I'd argue that is where the problem lies. Because currently and as far as
by ErrantX 17y ago
Great rebuttal.
> But this logic falls apart if one assumes there is one true deity
I'd argue that is where the problem lies. Because currently and as far as I am aware the Atheist viewpoint and the Theist viewpoint is equally legitimate and, at some specific point, not empirically provable either way. i.e. the existence of God is purely a belief/non-belief thing (I touched on this in another comment).
From a logical/rational viewpoint the Atheist and the Theist hold disparaging views regarding the Theists god (existence/non-existence). However, they hold essentially the same view r.e. other gods. Because the Theists God cannot be empirically proven the Atheist/Theist view is equally valid - they are equal.
In a case where God is either empirically proven to exist or not exist you are right; the argument breaks down. To my knowledge this situation does not currently exist.
Short version: your argument works perfectly. But if God empirically doesn't exist then the logic is flawed in the same way. From the unproven ground the logic is sound.
- mixmax 17y agoI strongly disagree. Just because something hasn't been proven to be false it doesn't mean it's true. It hasn't been decisively proven that the Earth wasn't sneezed out of the nose of a giant space-goat, but that doesn't mean that the goat-sneezing theory should be equally valid to other theories which have more empirical evidence to their name. I have never seen any empirical evidence for the existence of a god, and thus it doesn't seem like a valid theory.
- ErrantX 17y agoI'd say they are valid theories simply by affect of not being completely absurd by "our standards". Many scientific theories have been considered absurd then ultimately proven. Obviously the religious argument has been around much longer; perhaps it is just a bigger question that "what is light", or maybe it is just bunk (I'm in the latter camp, if it matters). Also, from a personal perspective, I would say that the weighting is clearly in favour of non-existence. However from a religious perspective it is the other way. That, ultimately, is the source of all disagreement over religion. How do you find a common measurements of truth/non-truth when your "markers" are entirely different. Which is invalid? Who judges? (the answer, I feel is that society judges - and currently we are in transition from pro-theist to pro-atheist, but it will be a long transition)
- ErrantX 17y agoI understand the later post getting downvoted... but why this? It makes little comment on whether the views are equal (that was a side issue Mixmax brought up). It is pointing out how the GP's logic is flawed!