= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
corruptmemory comments on The Least Convenient Possible World - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (186)
"I believe that God’s existence or non-existence can not be rigorously proven."
Cannot be proven by us, with our limits on detection, or cannot be proven in principle?
Because if it's the latter, you're saying that the concept of 'God' has no meaning.
Formalize this a bit:
"I believe that X’s existence or non-existence can not be rigorously proven."
Where X is of the set of beings imagined by or could be imagined by humans, e.g.: God, Gnomes, Zeus, Wotan, Vishnu, unicorns, leprechauns, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. Why is any one of the statements that result from such substitutions more meaningful than any other?