[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by Loser:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ran-Taro:
In the absence of any evidence of something existing, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist.

Whatever my thoughts on the afterlife might be, that isn't actually logic. Absence of any evidence means nothing, logically.

To believe something you do not have any evidence to support is not reason, it is faith. That is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic.

---

I disagree. It is true that with no evidence either way it cannot be said that something is either true or not true. Hence the word 'probably'.

However, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is, logically, the most likley to be true.

This is why I can validly say that George W Bush is probably not J Edgar Hoover, risen from the dead, in a really good disguise.

I currently have no evidence to support that he isn't. However given the fact that I have no evidence to indicate that he is J Edgar Hoover in disguise, logically, he is probably not.

The only difference in likleyhood between these two positions (without any physical evidence) is that one requires a more complex explanation. It is therefore less likley to be true.

It would be difficult to function in a world where this rule was not true.

By the same logic - when we die, in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, we are probably dead.

In fact, the argument goes further than that, because when we die, we leave behind physical evidence (a dead body) that contradicts everything we know produces life in sentient creatures (ie, a functioning body). Hence, based on our knowledge of physical reality, it can be fairly said that there is no life after death.

Whether, the Bible, the resurrection, the existence of faith itself etc., constitute evidence of an afterlife is a different matter.

[ October 07, 2003, 13:33: Message edited by: Ran-Taro ]