Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism
Let's leave aside for the moment whether evidence can be provided for the supernatural or not. To have a meaningful discussion, you have to have ready evidence for your premises or, at the very least, your premises have to be falsifiable. Otherwise you are just making so many circular arguments. If you cannot provide evidence that a supernatural or a spiritual even exists then, for the purposes of discussion, you are saying nothing when you say that science doesn't apply to it. I have a quote of my own:
Begging or assuming the point at issue consists (to take the expression in its widest sense) in failing to demonstrate the required proposition. But there are several other ways in which this may happen; for example, if the argument has not taken syllogistic form at all, he may argue from premises which are less known or equally unknown, or he may establish the antecedent by means of its consequents; for demonstration proceeds from what is more certain and is prior.
--Fowler's Deductive Logic
(The "equally unknown" part applies to you.)
You say that belief in gods are reasonable yet you've conceded that you lack evidence for your god of choice. I say whatever kind of belief is came about without any evidence is by definition unreasoned. Furthermore, I suspect that no belief in the existence of gods are based on reason, rather faith. So instead of arguing that your "creative god" exists because of X or Y or that it's even reasonable to believe in it, why not just say that you believe in it because you have faith?
Last edited by Nicato; 02-02-2007 at 06:13 AM.