Inconsistencies in your Logic

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by 5abijut, Sep 27, 2010.

  1. For people trying to refine their beliefs and making their logic consistent.

    Battleground God

    Had to take one hit.

    I put the standard of the evidence of a god higher than the evidence of evolution apparently, other than that nothing.

    Let me know what you think!
  2. I thought this part was a bit dumb:

    "You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice:"

    Seeing as I don't devote my life to something based on evolution, I chose to not need irrevocable evidence for evolution. For me to devote my life to god though, I would need irrevocable evidence. That's not a flaw in my logic at all.

    I stopped there.
  3. I don't like things like this. You can interpret terms and questions in different ways, which makes it about impossible to go through without being inconsistent. I pride myself on being, or at least striving to be, consistent in my logic.
  4. It's bullshit, anything that's still questioning evolution is living hundreds of years ago.
  5. I went through without incurring any "damage." Interesting find.

Share This Page