Re: logic makes a comeback

Keith Plummer (keithp@starnetinc.com)
Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:03:00 -0500

In a message dated Tue, 17 Jun 1997 Pim writes:

Russell: Simple: because there is no evidence for His existence. Why is
it reasonable to believe in something for which there is no evidence?

Keithp: Russell, on what grounds are you justified in asserting such an
objective universal negative on the basis of your limited personal (and
thus subjective) experience? At the risk of beating a dead horse,

Pim: Perhaps because he believes that there is indeed no evidence of the
existance of a deity ? How different is this from claiming that a deity
does exist ? Although the latter one lacks the evidence to support
itself.

Let me see if I understand you, here. Are you claiming that the
statement "There is no evidence for the existence of a deity" is true?
And if you are, is this claim scientific ?

Keith