- #106
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 5,584
- 24
Originally posted by drag
you recognized above that there IS always
a chance things are different. So why keep
trying to deny what you can not ?
I suppose you are referring to my discussion of inductive reasoning. Of course, I do not try to deny that things can be different than how I understand them. If so, then I could never accept a new theory.
The flipside to the "inductive logic" coin that you are not seeing here is "falsifiability". We hold to ideas about the universe until they are proven wrong and supplanted by better ones, recognizing all the time that the new ideas are only tentative. The guiding principle should be that the acceptance of new ideas must bring us closer to our experiences, not farther away from them.
In the case of arguing for a "god", there is no connection to our experiences whatsoever. Thus, we cannot say anything meaningful about it.