Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound condescending, but I recognise that I did.

If you're saying that the philosophically relevant difference between god and pink unicorns is physical-being-ness, in response to the point that there's no evidence for either and therefore both are as likely as each other (to put it all simply), you're saying that, because god isn't a physical being, it doesn't require evidence to be a convincing proposition.

I'm not saying it "doesn't fit into your belief structure", I just meant to say that while I find your beliefs and arguments interesting and compelling, I don't think this is a sound objection. Unless there's some reason that physical-being-ness is a philosophically relevant difference that I have just missed and can't see, which is also entirely possible. But then you'll have to explain that.
Because the comparisons being made aren't equal. The objects being compared (in this case, God and an invisible, coloured unicorn or a theoretical teapot) aren't equivalent to one another. If God was a physical being with a presence that could be measured empirically, then it is an apt comparison. I'm not saying "because God isn't a physical being, no evidence is required". I'm saying "the invisible unicorn and the teapot are false analogies because you're comparing apples to oranges". That has no bearing on the actual debate itself, whether or not God exists and why, but is instead critical of an argument against the proof of God's existence.

The whole argument for the unicorn/teapot is, as you stated, that there's no evidence for either existing, therefore we can substitute in God for the unicorn/teapot and say "well, there's no evidence here either, I guess he doesn't exist." My issue is that there are no commonalities between unicorns/teapots except for the fact that we have no evidence of their existent. The requirements for one or another to exist are very, very different from each other, and, should they exist, they would do so in inherently different ways. The point that God does not require a physical presence to exist and the fact that teapots/unicorns can only exist as a physical presence is an extreme difference between the two when you're questioning whether or not one does or does not exist. Assuming an equal likelihood of all probabilities:

1) All of the above exist.
1a) God exists physically, teapots/unicorns exist physically
1b) God exists abstractly (in the sense that God does not have a physical body, but still exists nevertheless), teapots/unicorns exist physically (incapable of existing abstractly)

2) One exists, the other does not
2a) God exists physically, the teapot/unicorn does not exist
2b) God exists abstractly, the teapot/unicorn does not exist
2c) God does not exist, teapot/unicorn exists

3) Neither exists

The argument is saying that because there is equal proof of both existing (which is kind of a false lead in and of itself, considering the breadth of human knowledge is fallible in terms of what it has not encountered or accurately determined, and the truth of what's accurately determined is not always proven), then neither exist. It is just as likely that one or the other exists, but not both. But all of this hinges on bother things being compared having commonalities between each other in the context of the comparison.

I'm saying there are fundamentally different requirements for one to exist than the other, so using the possibility of one's existence to confirm/deny the existence of the other is flawed for precisely that reason. While the lack of physical existence can be effectively linked and ruled out, the abstract, or spiritual, existence of God cannot be equated the same way and so cannot be ruled out the same way.


Quote Originally Posted by gwahir
THAT is why I have so little patience for people who say "you can't disprove god any more than you can prove it, so both positions are illogical".
I think I've said this to you before: I don't really understand the need for some people to make an absolute statement on the existence of God. Making such a statement requires that we truly understand what God is, and it is far more probable that such a being is beyond our collective comprehension at the moment. So the question is: What piece of evidence would exist as proof of God's existence? How do we know that it would be proof?

Assuming that we can currently understand God strikes me as hubris, personally.