proof, logic

Rob Harris (
Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:14:29 -0000

>I would offer that the evidence for "No God", i.e. athiesm is weak.
>The question revolves around "What is God?". If I choose to define
>"God" as the creator of Earth (an alien ET SI running an experiment
>performing an occasional miracle) then there isn't much evidence
>available to say that isn't true.

More importantly, there's none to say that it is true, and the responsibility for proof lies with the proposer. Otherwise, I could propose that everything was made by a big mac and fries on the clouds that gives me everything I want (in a non-measurable sense, of course), then back it up with "You can't disprove it!!".
Then of course, I'd start "educating" YOUR children with the big mac religion, and you'd be given a bad-sounding "-ist" to wear on your head, should you complain.
There is no "disprove it!", this is not rational.......after all - do you think you can disprove my big-mac that demands blind irrational faith and so hides? How can you do it when there are no premises or base observations to scrutinise?
What there is though, is a MASSIVE and totally transparent motive to make any old crap up, and delude myself - hey, I can magic away all my greatest fears, and give existence "meaning" in one fell!