OK, so I posted a wee bit ago, about Auckland, and about Athiests. Daniel posted in reply to my post, so I thought I would return the favour
( Read more... )
What annoys me even more is when someone confuses God and the Church. Especially when they figure that
The Church is wrong about a specific detail.
Therefore, the Church is always wrong, all the time.
As far as I can tell, this is where nakedcelt started from; at least, that's the picture I get from reading the Does God Exist? series on his webpage, especially the last installment.
Moreover, I see little distinction between the spirituality he found to replace God, and God as I believe in him.
Plus, of course, logical arguments are not like a criminal trial.
A trial has two possible outcomes: Guilty or Innocent. And for the protection of the innocent, the outcome is Innocent unless proven Guilty.
An argument, on the other hand, has three possible outcomes: True, False, and Unknown. We cannot apply "False until proven True" here; the correct rule would be "Unknown until proven otherwise".
If fuzzy logic is applied, we can give the argument a sliding score from -1 to 1. If the score is -1 then it is proven False, at 1 it is proven True, and at 0 it is completely Unknown.
I have never seen any evidence that God does not exist; only questions about (or attacks on) the evidence that he does. If evidence scores points, and doubt about evidence reduces the evidence's score (but cannot reduce it past zero), then the score must be between 0 and 1: not proven, but more likely True than False.
Comments 2
- The Church is wrong about a specific detail.
- Therefore, the Church is always wrong, all the time.
As far as I can tell, this is where nakedcelt started from; at least, that's the picture I get from reading the Does God Exist? series on his webpage, especially the last installment.Moreover, I see little distinction between the spirituality he found to replace God, and God as I believe in him.
Reply
A trial has two possible outcomes: Guilty or Innocent. And for the protection of the innocent, the outcome is Innocent unless proven Guilty.
An argument, on the other hand, has three possible outcomes: True, False, and Unknown. We cannot apply "False until proven True" here; the correct rule would be "Unknown until proven otherwise".
If fuzzy logic is applied, we can give the argument a sliding score from -1 to 1. If the score is -1 then it is proven False, at 1 it is proven True, and at 0 it is completely Unknown.
I have never seen any evidence that God does not exist; only questions about (or attacks on) the evidence that he does. If evidence scores points, and doubt about evidence reduces the evidence's score (but cannot reduce it past zero), then the score must be between 0 and 1: not proven, but more likely True than False.
Reply
Leave a comment