Boss
Take a Memo:
- Thread starter
- #161
Circular logic is technically valid, but it doesn't get you anywhere.
I'm not using circular logic, you are. I'm using a simple "IF-THEN" statement to make a point... IF you don't believe in spirituality, THEN you will not accept spiritual evidence. There is nothing circular about that logic, it is just plain old regular normal logic.
Circular logic is when you say that you don't believe in god because there is no physical evidence of god. IF there was physical evidence of god, it would no longer be spiritual.
First of all, I never said I don't believe in god because of a lack of physical evidence. You simply assumed this. I point out a lack of physical evidence because that is a fact. There is no evidence of any type to justify belief in god, for me.
It's an irrelevant fact, because god is not physical, there is no logical reason for there to be physical evidence of something that isn't physical. The OP did not single you out, I clearly stated that the "God-haters" will chortle there is no physical proof of god. Which, ironically, is precisely what you just chortled.... but that this is a irrational and illogical point. Spiritual entities can't provide physical evidence, if they did, they would no longer be spiritual. Now, we can "interpret" physical evidence to be the result of spiritual entities, I am not saying that can't be the case, it most certainly is the case. But to try and prove or disprove a spiritual entity with physical science and physical evidence, is not possible or logical. What is important to examine, is SPIRITUAL evidence, which you refuse to recognize.
Spiritual evidence is a meaningless term until you adequately define it. Drawing bad analogies to things like thoughts or feelings is not a definition, although I understand what you are trying to do.
And this is the problem, you are not willing to accept spirituality or spiritual evidence. In order to objectively evaluate the 'existence' (in a spiritual sense) of god, you have to first recognize that such 'existence' is possible. You don't believe it is. Therefore, definitions simply do not matter, they are just a reason for you to object and obfuscate, in order to avoid the evidence presented.
If god is defined as something completely non-physical, which it almost always is, that doesn't preclude the possibility for its effects to be senses in physical reality (revelation, miracles, creation itself), so it is not circular to say I don't believe in god because of a lack of evidence. Again, it depends upon the definition of god you are using.
You don't believe in god, a spiritual entity, because there is a lack of physical evidence, which a spiritual entity is not logically expected to provide, and you reject all spiritual evidence, which is the only type of evidence that can definitively prove existence of a spiritual entity. This CIRCULAR logic precludes you from ever understanding the spiritual evidence presented or recognizing the definitive proof as such.