tinker683
Whackus Bonkus
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,882
- MBTI Type
- ISFJ
- Enneagram
- 9w1
- Instinctual Variant
- sp/sx
No, it's not like that. I am not really arguing that God exists. I am arguing that atheists should, by their own standards (normally those of empiricism/Bayesianism), consider the existence of God as more supported by the evidence every time they observe something new that is not God. It's really an argument about epistemology.
1) This statement only has meaning if there is a generally accepted, coherent definition of the word "God" and if all atheists were atheists were because of empiricism/Bayesianism
2) Why would I have to conclude that there is a god if I observe something new as opposed to...say....any other number of possibilities?