You are right, logic can't prove anything is real.
But since supernatural can't be proven by the natural, all we have in common to talk about is 'reason and logic'.
That's not true. We have something else in common. We can try to figure out what the hell supernatural
means. We can try to figure out what it means beyond 'different from natural'. Because - and I'm going to guess that you're pretty sick of reading it by now, but - things that are not real also can't be proven by the natural
. Not real
things are also
'different from natural.'
You have yet to provide an explanation as to how you can differentiate between supernatural
and not real
. You have yet to provide an explanation as to how you can differentiate between lacking evidence because it's supernatural
and lacking evidence because it's not real
Why isn't this sinking in, dennis?
The best we can do with logic is to justify the reasonableness of our respective worldviews.
You may even arrive at proving that deism is the most reasonable explanation.
No, the best we can do is to ask ourselves how we can determine if some phenomenon is true, and to propose various methods of truth discovery. You are proposing using logic
as the method of truth discovery in this case. The problem is - that is insufficient for truth discovery
. How can we say that? Well...easily. One can reason and logic
their way to all sorts of conclusions that do not appear to be true
. In the longlong ago, thinkers reason and logic
'd their way towards a geocentric model of the cosmos. Thinkers reason and logic
'd their way towards a model of perfectly circular celestial orbits
. Then, many years later, someone decided to take a look
and found out that the conclusions that were reason and logic
'd were wrong
. Not true
Hell, I've reason and logic
'd my way towards concluding that it is healthier for myself and others around me for me to remain a smoker. <--- and that sh*t is clearly untrue
You can't prove the actual existence of God, never mind the Judeo Christian version and even less Christianity.
All of these flow out from a worldview but each step down that path requires the previous step to accepted.
But...that's the problem here, dennis. At some point, you ask us to accept the step of 'god actually exists'. We then ask 'why should we accept that step', and, in essence, you're answer is 'because if you don't accept it, I can't prove that god actually exists.'
Cart before the horse, man.