Quote:
Originally Posted by Daldolma
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Idiot, it's a belief. I'm not telling you god exists. I still haven't even stated my own beliefs. I'm saying that it is rational to believe that god exists. It is also rational to believe that there is no god or creator. You don't have to prove either viewpoint in order for them to be considered rational -- both are inherently unprovable.
If someone was telling you god definitely exists, yes -- the burden of proof would shift to him. If someone was telling you god definitely doesn't exist -- again, burden of proof is on him. Nobody is saying that here. We're talking about beliefs and the rationality of those beliefs.
|
I'm posting here against my better judgement, since it's almost impossible to have an intelligent conversation on these forums without it being ignored or derailed by trolls.
I think it's right to say that you can't prove or disprove the existence of god one way or the other. This is a red herring though, since a lot of intuitively absurd claims are impossible to prove or disprove. You could apply your same standard to the flying spaghetti monster (I know it's asinine, it's just the best example I could come up with) or any other parody religion and your logic would still hold. I think what Alarti is trying to say is that you shouldn't commit to a belief in something that you have no evidence for. This is different from saying that you should commit to a belief in the opposite. Something can be unproven but true - Fermat's last theorem was no less true 20 years ago (before it was proven) than it is now.
I still think Alarti's approach is a little too strong. I don't require evidence for every little thing that people tell me. If I come home and my wife says, "the roast is in the oven", and I don't smell it, see it, or otherwise verify her claim with my senses, I still believe what she says is true. But if someone says that the universe was created by an all-knowing, all-powerful being, I need evidence for that because of the enormity of their claim. That doesn't mean that it's not true, just that you shouldn't commit to believing in it without evidence.