To me, this is an interesting one. I suppose in order to prove the existence either for or against, one would first need to precisely define "God" to begin with. Then I suppose the question would be, exactly what constitutes acceptable proof? Would it be as supposedly used in court, that it must be beyond any reasonable doubt? Which after that still leaves open, that even with an accepted definition of God for the sake of the argument, whether proof beyond any reasonable doubt is indeed at all possible, and also that the lack of proof for either argument does not have any bearing on what is actually true.
To me, this is an interesting one. I suppose in order to prove the existence either for or against, one would first need to precisely define "God" to begin with. Then I suppose the question would be, exactly what constitutes acceptable proof? Would it be as supposedly used in court, that it must be beyond any reasonable doubt? Which after that still leaves open, that even with an accepted definition of God for the sake of the argument, whether proof beyond any reasonable doubt is indeed at all possible, and also that the lack of proof for either argument does not have any bearing on what is actually true.
ReplyDelete