Yeah, you posted that at the same time I was writing so I hadn't seen it. His basic argument boils down to practicality, which is fine for the real world and everyday life--yes, we use induction all the time otherwise we'd never get anything done. But unlike the overwhelming lack of evidence of unicorns in the fossil record, which makes it reasonable to infer there were none even if we can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, people can't agree on whether there is evidence (or what the evidence specifically is) that God exists. Like Bruce said,
Quote:
|
the existence of GOD can't be disproved, any more than it can be proved.
|
You can't infer in either direction at all, which makes it different from anything else you might discuss that has at least some evidence to go off of.