thesmokingman, 1 year ago

You’re very focused on religion and seem to be missing all of the points about logic.

not saying that … pretty agnostic

Cool, we’re on the same page.

If someone makes a claim… it needs… evidence

This is problematic without a rigorous definition of evidence. I’m assuming you mean something along the lines of repeatable and independently verifiable since you won’t take a claim at face value. If you’re going to rigorously define evidence, you’re going to need to create a system that can’t contradict itself. Per your quotes, either there is a ball in my hand or there isn’t.

This is called a consistent system. We agree on a set of axioms that we will achieve results from. If we have a consistent system and build a bunch of results on top of that, eventually we’ll run into things that are true but we cannot prove. We know this because of a famous result I’ve already mentioned. In other words, we must take central results on faith. A common one that, several decades ago, was met with ridicule because it was “so illogical” mathematicians had “suspend reality in order for it to make any sense” is the axiom of choice.

In other words, you can’t use logic and reason to say those that believe in religion are idiots because you have just as much proof as they do (just faith) if we accept the basic axioms that drive our logical system.

doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist… isn’t circular logic

You’re conflating a tautology with circular reasoning. Circular reasoning boils down to “A because B; B because A;” and you’ve said “A because A” without any support for A. The lack of something in your hand is not necessary and sufficient to prove the ball’s existence. The only claim we can make is that your hand is empty.

Here is a metaphysical claim for you to chew on: it is possible to know whether or not it is possible to prove a claim.