| I'm all for "fundamental arguments" as you call them, but they are probably the least interesting arguments imaginable. Their only claim to being interesting, from my point of view, is because they tend to arise as the last bastion of a belief system that has been whittled away by evidence. Let's take your example a little further, starting with the perhaps more general: "Do you believe in a higher power?". I agree that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a higher power, however I do think it is possible to prove (not that I think it will be proved, ever). Things that were previously taken as evidence of such a proof are now generally accepted as natural phenomena (lightning as a crude example). The nature of what would prove the existence makes for a much more interesting argument than the mere possibility of existence. "Do you believe that the higher power interacts with this universe?" "Do you believe that we can measure that interaction?" "What would that measurement look like?" "Why haven't we actually measured that?" (perhaps a loaded question!) If someone chooses to believe in a higher power that is unable to interact with us, and has no impact on anything we do, good for them! Potential issues arise when people believe that the higher powers does interact with the world, and so I find that discussion much more interesting than merely if such a thing could exist or not. |