Evidentiary argument

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(We should believe in propositions without evidence)
Line 14: Line 14:
 
*God wants us to have [[faith]].
 
*God wants us to have [[faith]].
 
*Faith is a virtue.
 
*Faith is a virtue.
*We have faith in other things: [[wind]], [[love]], [[trust]], [[quantum mechanics]], [[Gödel's incompleteness theorem]]  
+
*We have faith in other things: wind, love, trust, [[quantum mechanics]], [[Gödel's incompleteness theorem]]
  
 
===There is evidence for the existence of God===
 
===There is evidence for the existence of God===

Revision as of 21:10, 18 November 2007

An evidentiary argument is an argument based on evidence. In apologetics and counter-apologetics the argument usually goes as follows:


There is no evidence for the existence of God.
We should not believe in a proposition for which there is no evidence.
We should not believe in the existence of God.


The objections can be grouped into objections to specific premises:

We should believe in propositions without evidence

This branch of defense arguments usually concern the idea of faith and the defenses there of.

There is evidence for the existence of God


This is, much like Pascal's Wager, is an argument for belief rather than the existence of God. The thrust of the argument is that we shouldn't believe in God, not that there are not god(s).

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox