Faith vs Reason
Created | Updated Nov 20, 2006
A work in progress...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Undefined claims lack meaning, and can neither be proven nor refuted. Although teapots undeniably exist, and we can agree on an adequate teapot definition, if I postulated the existence of an intelligent, talking teapot, I would be compelled to provide verifiable proof or justly be deemed eccentric at best, certifiably insane at worst. If I say there is an intelligent glarbek in my garden, and fail to clearly define a glarbek, you would justly deem I was babbling sheer nonsense. The sentience of the glarbek could hardly be a matter of discussion. So too with divine claims. I cannot refute a theist argument which posits the existence of God as long as those theists making the claim remain unable or unwilling to define 'God', however I can, and do, maintain all such undefined 'god-talk' is inherently meaningless. So: 1. god-talk is meaningless, therefore 2. the theist position claiming divine existence is itself invalid. 3. the theists lose |
"It's a mystery" -- no, that is not an argument. At best it means the individual making the statement is unwilling, or incapable, of rational discourse.
"God is Love" -- no, Love is an emotion, not a deity. In any case, a God of Love would be decidedly unlike the violent, bloody God of the Abrahamic religions, (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), and more closely resemble one of the pagan fertility deities.
