But it IS logic.
All we have as a basis for evidence is the observable laws of the universe.
We can't say for certain that there isn't a gigantic ant in the depths of the ocean twice the size of the blue whale...but based on observable and measurable evidence elsewhere - our understanding of species, the structure of organisms, we can be certain beyond all reasonable doubt that there isn't.
We can't prove that there is no god, but based on our understanding of the universe, an omnipresent and omnipotent being doesn't make sense.
There is a great deal of evidence to support the notion that the idea of a deity is a human construct. It makes far more rational sense.
That's not an opinion - it's a fact.
Pretty much every organised culture has come up with the idea of a deity. They have common elements, but pretty much all clash in details.
So why doesn't this mean that it's equally likely that a deity DOES exist?
Because the notion that it's an inate human need to create a god figure fits perfectly with our understanding of the universe.
The notion that this deity actually exists requires a massive leap of logic that counters the laws of the universe and has to invent new ones that can't be observed elsewhere.
So it's a conclusion based on logic and whilst no conclusion can be absolute, it can be said to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
(, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:12, Share, Reply)
Your post is a nonsense.
You have stated opinion as fact.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:18,
Share,
Reply)
Let's agree to disagree on that one.
And there I was starting to think that we were finally going to sort out the whole god thing once and for all.
Ah well.
(, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:22, Share, Reply)
Agreeing to disagree is fine.
If Dawkins would do that then he'd be less of a hypocrite ;)
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:31,
Share,
Reply)