[FoRK] Re: Is Truth an Accident? Re: Is God an Accident?

Corinna < corinna.schultz at gmail.com > on > Sat Sep 23 12:14:46 PDT 2006

Maybe I will regret joining the fray... :)

Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
> You may not find religious belief justified by your paradigm, but I don't find
your lack of belief justifiable within *my* paradigm.

Does this mean that you think circular reasoning is ok?

Russel said:
>The only evidence I know that the dogmatism of the religious is
>unjustified is from reading their own explanations and

One example of this is that it is very common in apologetic works to refer to
the Bible as an authority on the existence of God.

I have yet to meet a Christian (or read a Christian book) who was able to engage
me in a reasoned conversation without appealing to the authority of the Bible.
Even when I explicitly said that I rejected that axiom, so any argument which
needs that axiom could not be allowed.

As another example, does your paradigm allow for mutually contradictory
statements to be coherent? It is logically inconsistent/incoherent for a being
to be simultaneously omni-everything.

You're educated enough that you've probably already come across these common
objections. They are both based in logic, not evidence.

Does your paradigm reject logical reasoning?

Non-Euclidian geometry is based on a different set of axioms than Euclidian
geometry. Apparently, athiesm is based on a different set of axioms than theism


More information about the FoRK mailing list