In another question, I asked "What is illogical about theism?" Generally speaking the responses to this question were tied back to there being a lack of evidence. I'd agree that in order for something to be believable, it needs evidence. To me, it seems that there is plenty of evidence for God's existence, but that evidence is not acceptable to atheists. The argument goes like this.
1.) All that is knowable is the natural world
2.) Therefore, the supernatural world is not knowable
3.) Therefore, can be no evidence for the supernatural world
4.) Therefore there is no reason to believe in the supernatural world.
Hypothetical syllogism simplifies this:
1.) If all that is knowable is the natural world, there is no way to believe in the supernatural world.
So, is it really a lack of evidence, or the presumption that evidence can't exist?
2006-10-05
12:04:15
·
11 answers
·
asked by
The1andOnlyMule
2