I can define it however I choose to define it. For the sake of conversation...possession of a vagina. It's an incomplete definition..but that conversation just boils down to semantics..
My point is..lack of evidence is not evidence.
Lack of evidence can't be a reason to make a positive claim.
I think this is actually a fallacy..let me look it up..it probably explains what I'm trying to say a lot better.
It's okay. I was being whimsical.
In general, I already agree with you that lack of evidence can't be a reason to make a positive claim, it can only be a circumstantial case.
But okay, let's look at it again for a second:
So yes..it is illogical to believe something is true just because it can't be proven false.
It is illogical for someone to believe I am a girl just because he or she can't prove I am not a girl.
It is illogical for someone to believe that there is a god just because he or she can't prove that there isn't one.
How one defines "girl" could provide quantifiable evidence that you are indeed a girl.
If the definition of girl is merely "someone with XX sex chromosomes" (the validity of which can be argued elsewhere, this is just an example), then all one has to do is get the desired data and make a determination. It's plausible with that definition to decide if you are indeed a girl.
"God" is far more nebulous, especially considering how the more quantifiable something or someone is, the less likely we'll see them as a god. One can hedge the definition of "god" to be more quantifiable, but then run the risk of alienating listeners who recognize the definition as the sham it likely is.
Because you didn't agree with them anymore? Because they no longer gave you a reason to think you were better than others, or had special knowledge that they didn't?
Matrix 1 was a real great "Christian-laden" story. A lot of allegory line up with the basic Christian philosophy.
Matrix 2 & 3 began to deviate from that.
The focus of 2 was "cause and effect / casuality / determinism."
The focus of 3 was essentially "balance/cycles."
I can see why a Christian might not be able to identify as much with 2 and 3, although conceptually I very much liked all the movies.
Or because it was impossible to hide the suckiness of Keanu Reeves' acting over three movies?
Well, my dissatisfactions with #2 & #3 did center around (a) Keanu Reeve's crappy acting ability and (b) in #3, the cut-and-dried closure/cut-scenes of the story, plus the cheesy Ewok "OMG we're all saved let's gush" ending.
let's face it, Christianity is linear in how the story is typically told today by the conservatives. There is a beginning, there is an ending, and everything is about following the through-line and reaching the happy ending. Balance? there is no balance. The world was good and supposed to be that way; then the world turned bad, and we have to restore the world to good.
The Matrix is far more eastern, with its overriding deterministic elements, the continual recycling/rebirth concept, and the need for good and evil to balance since they are just part of the same whole.... although I still think it merges those elements with Christian-style elements such as sacrifice / giving up control / accepting one's fate out of faith, etc. There were still many things i could identify with, Christianity-wise, in the latter two.