I don't quite know how, I just don't understand how your counter-objection works against mine. If anything, it's a bigger pile of rhetoric.
The statement people want to say is 'Any statement that isn't a priori significant or backed up by evidence is meaningless' right? That statement is neither significant or backed up by evidence. It's impossible for a need for evidence to justify itself.
Yes, the 'outside' of the empirical world is utterly meaningless to us in the end, as it stands, but that's not the point. The point is there's no good reason to suggest why it couldn't exist without going back inside the sphere.
It's outside the sphere of evidence and thus scientifically meaningless, but it's not outside the sphere of thought and you can't deny the claim that God or other metaphysics could exist without fighting them on their own terms. 'You can't prove God exists' is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Ultimately, like I said, God's existence does not impact our everyday lives, and given the sheer number of religions in the world and the nature of faith to begin with, there may not be good enough reason to conceptually deny God, but there is certainly enough reason to not all convert on the off-chance he exists (Fuck you Pascal) and to just get on with things inside our sphere of logic.
__________________
:
|
โI always believe the movies I've made are smarter than the way they are perceived by sort of mass culture and by the critics,โ Snyder said, a statement he immediately followed by saying, โAlso, โIt looks like a video game.โ
|
|
