More Religion Stuff
The conclusion of my first debate was that the Christian god is illogical and, therefore, impossible to know for certain IF you chose Conclusion D. That means that one has no way to know his motives or beliefs
( Read more... )
"I cannot prove or disprove X.
Therefore, I believe X exists."
If that is not the argument, correct me so I can correct my counter-argument.
Now, if we assume this is sound logic, it should apply to everything that is X. That includes every mythological creature and imaginary being one can imagine or make up.
But you do not. You have come to the conclusion that your god exists, but no commonly known mythology or something I made up out of thin air. You are coming to two different conclusions based on the same argument, which is impossible if it is sound logic.
I propose that you believe in a different argument for ugga altogether. It goes:
"I believe X exists.
I cannot prove or disprove X.
Therefore, I believe X exists."
Do you notice how the conclusion is also a proposition? That is a big no-no. In fact, we could probably simplify this argument because we have already shown that the proposition that "I cannot prove or disprove X" does not effect your conclusion.
"I believe X exists.
Therefore, I believe X exists."
Reply
Leave a comment