Golden mean bullshit by TIME magazine

[Rye]

"Outside of nature" has no meaning, since, by definition, everything that exists has a nature of existence in some manner or other. If magic/spirits/etc existed, "outside of nature" would not apply to the term, it would merely be another aspect of existence and the way everything that exists interacts. Once you realise that the concepts involved in "supernatural" events and entities "outside of nature" are in fact inherently flawed concepts that are logically unproposable.

Now, you could argue that as part of the larger nature of existence, traditionally mystical demons and whatever might exist, sure, of course, then you need objectivity to determine if they're realistic or not, whether they have any supporting evidence, or whether anyone proposing them has anything more than tradition on his side.

"Really got skynet by the balls now, don't we?"

[Kamakazie Sith]

I dislike the position some hold that God can't be logically disproven.

Haven't you disproven the idea of God if you show that the idea is a creation of human imagination?

[Darth Wong]

I dislike the position some hold that God can't be logically disproven.

Haven't you disproven the idea of God if you show that the idea is a creation of human imagination?

It can be proven that God is an illogical idea. The problem is that when they say "can't be logically disproven", they mean "you must prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that he does not exist". And you can't do that with any idea.

[mr friendly guy]

I dislike the position some hold that God can't be logically disproven.

Haven't you disproven the idea of God if you show that the idea is a creation of human imagination?

If they define God in contradictory terms, it can be logically disproven. For example and omnipotent and omniscient and all good being, yet evil still happens.

IF they define God vague, its most probably not possible although of course the burden of proof falls on them.