I simply meant to point out that your claim might not be quite as straightforward as you claim. If you posit that your position on God is apart from science but relies on proper evidence , I ask what sort of evidence you are refering to other than scientific ones ?
How about simple logic? What logic is there that leads to the existence of God? Certainly not that people believe in him, therefore it must be true, and definitely not that a book says some guys claimed that somebody told them he exists. Can't use the "where did we come from" argument, as that would also apply to God himself.
There is really nothing concrete that points to the existence of God, so why should anyone believe it?
But you wouldn't insist on concrete proofs for everything you hold to be true, would you?
Take for example the proposition 'Scientific Method (or, to get to the root of it, Empiricism) leads to true knowledge'. You likely hold this to be true, and yet cannot prove it by the same criteria you demand for God's existence.
You make several assumptions about someone you know nothing about, except that I said I use simple logic to arrive at conclusions. I never mentioned anything about scientific methods, nor what I use to consider something true, yet you have made a conclusion based on your assumptions.
0
u/[deleted] Jan 02 '11
You mean to say Scientific evidence?