If you do not concede that either a proposition or its negation are true, there is very little rational discussion that can follow A terribly old-fashioned viewpoint that is clearly not true. Take the proposition "The sea is green" - it's not true _or_ false, but rather somewhere in-between. Simple Aristotalean logic is very handy if you're happy to ignore the fact that the universe is much fuzzier and more complex than ontologies can deal with.
did I feel in my uttermost being, when say confronted with a spectacular sunset or some such, that there must be something grater than myself? As some people would, and some wouldn't, I'd argue that this particular proof tells you rather more about the person perceiving the sunset than it does about the sunset itself - and also that proceeding from "The sunset makes me feel awed and humble." to "There is a God who created the world in seven days and sent his only son to save us all." requires the odd leap in the middle of the argument.
no subject
A terribly old-fashioned viewpoint that is clearly not true. Take the proposition "The sea is green" - it's not true _or_ false, but rather somewhere in-between. Simple Aristotalean logic is very handy if you're happy to ignore the fact that the universe is much fuzzier and more complex than ontologies can deal with.
did I feel in my uttermost being, when say confronted with a spectacular sunset or some such, that there must be something grater than myself?
As some people would, and some wouldn't, I'd argue that this particular proof tells you rather more about the person perceiving the sunset than it does about the sunset itself - and also that proceeding from "The sunset makes me feel awed and humble." to "There is a God who created the world in seven days and sent his only son to save us all." requires the odd leap in the middle of the argument.