Is logic over-rated? (homosexual, choice, atheist, faith)

[agent_smith]

Originally Posted by mr.guy

Then show that math. Should be easy, right?

Sure thing. Before I show you though, I am going to disprove a specific religion - as it is impossible to disprove the Deist Gods. Deism makes no claims about where God is/what God does/any evidence for his existence.

Let G stand for "God" and E stand for "Evidence" (for a specific God).
Just in case you are unaware, ==> means "implies", <== means "is implied by" (not used here) and <==> means "is equivalent to".

G<==>E

If E > 0 Then
P(G=True) > 0
Else
P(G=True) = 0
End If

E = 0
==> P(G=True) = 0


If you get your head around what all of that means (since I slipped into computer programming language a bit...), you will probably disagree with the statement "E = 0"

What does, for example, the Christian bible claim to be true SPECIFICALLY about THEIR God? A worldwide flood? The tower of Babel? (Some claim) a 6000 year old Earth? There is no evidence to support these claims.
Other religions are exactly the same - is there any evidence to support reincarnation? Or any kind of afterlife? Or Jews living in America thousands of years ago? And so on.

Basically, this is my view: No religion can be true, as they all lack evidence. The only "evidence" you can give is "what if?" questions and questionable sources such as the bible.
If your God exists, there should be evidence to show this - and we know exactly where this evidence SHOULD be... but it's not there. Therefore, that God is imaginary.


This is why I am a strong atheist towards Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, ... Gods.
It is also why I am a weak atheist towards the Deist Gods - not because I consider them any more likely to exist, but because they are impossible to disprove using logic.

Logic is not over-rated. If anything, it is under-rated.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by agent_smith

Logically, there is no compelling evidence showing God(s) exist.
Therefore, I choose to believe in God(s).

??!!

Correct logic forms a perfect argument. That is why I am an atheist.

Can you give me a compelling logical argument that you exist?

[agent_smith]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

Can you give me a compelling logical argument that you exist?

I just posted this message to you.

For me to reply to that question, I need to exist. The only other logical (?) solution is that NOTHING exists... but that's a bit silly.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by agent_smith

I just posted this message to you.

For me to reply to that question, I need to exist. The only other logical (?) solution is that NOTHING exists... but that's a bit silly.

I'm confused. Can you offer a compelling logical argument that you exist? Let's start with yes or no.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by agent_smith

I just posted this message to you.

For me to reply to that question, I need to exist. The only other logical (?) solution is that NOTHING exists... but that's a bit silly.

Not really, the most obvious alternative is that the original questioner exists and is positing that you might exist as well.

Regards,
Scott

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Not really, the most obvious alternative is that the original questioner exists and is positing that you might exist as well.

Regards,
Scott

Actually, all I'm asking is that he prove, according to sound logic, that he exists.

[Popeyesays]

"Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum "
Descartes

[agent_smith]

Implicit assumptions in the argument are that I exist and that communication with me is possible.

Ergo, your argument that I do not exist is actually an argument for my existence.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

"Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum "
Descartes

That's not a logical argument.