[ExI] Belief in maths

[darren shawn greer]

 I strongly disagree.
> 
> The truth of the statement "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not a matter of opinion. It's a logical fact. If a person decides it's not true, they're discarding logic altogether, and simply can't be argued with.<

 

 

I agree with you 100%. It is a completely logical and true statement. But men and women have been using it for centuries to deny the existence of a universal creator, dressing up their arguments in the guise of logic when in fact, as you pointed out regarding opinion vs logic, the belief in the absence of a creator is as much of an opinion or belief as its opposite stance. And all because Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So many otherwise intelligent and insightful atheists I know destroy eloquent supporting arguments--bolstered by logic, reason and science-- because of their initial denial of this premise.

 

It would be much more logical for Christopher Hitchins and Richard Dawkins to simply say, I don't know. There's no evidence to convince me. And it doesn't matter anyway because we have valid scientific scenarios where the universe could have originated on its own. It needs no creator to explain it. But I suppose it would be illogical of me to categorically deny the existence of a God of some sort just because I don’t see the evidence.

 

What a relief that would be! An end to the unwinnable argument that has been sapping our resources and energy and holding captive our imaginations for millennia.

 

That‘s pretty much what I meant, thought I may not have expressed  it well. Thanks for the reply. It made me think and re-assess (always a good thing.)




 

Per Ardua Ad Astra
For more info on author Darren Greer visit 
http://darrenshawngreer.blogspot.com



 

> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 01:00:23 -0700
> From: bbenzai at yahoo.com
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Belief in maths
> 
> darren shawn greer <dgreer_68 at hotmail.com> opined:
> 
> > It is such an important discussion, for secular humanists
> > and religious humanists are constantly having this argument.
> > "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and "It
> > most certainly is!" I think every person has to make this
> > decision for themselves
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree.
> 
> The truth of the statement "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not a matter of opinion. It's a logical fact. If a person decides it's not true, they're discarding logic altogether, and simply can't be argued with.
> 
> Ben Zaiboc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Turn down-time into play-time with Messenger games
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9734385
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100707/d1a07f1e/attachment.html>