First of all, I am neither Muslim nor Mormon.
I know that. Point was, Muslims and Mormons say the same thing for the same reason, without any real evidence.
Second of all, there is nothing wrong with my logic.
Yes, there is, and I pointed out how so.
You have blinders on, and you didn't comprehend what I wrote. Your premise that God doesn't exist cannot be proven, UNLESS we are dead, and we either see God, or we don't.
Again, I never said a god doesn't absolutely exist. And I'm not saying god can be proven or disproved. I'm saying, I use Occam's Razor
to avoid a god of the gaps fallacy, which could very well be an argument from ignorance.
Occam's Razor: Do not needlessly employ a god into the explanation. If a naturalistic explanation is plausible favor it over saying a god did it. Don't stuff a god in the gap just because we don't yet understand something.
This is what I'm trying to tell Duck. Time and time again men have shoved an invisible god into the gap, but when understanding comes god is pushed out of the gaps of our knowledge.
You believe the theory that He doesn't exist.
Which He? I never said a god absolutely does not exist, but I think we can make claims based about observation and probabilities in relation to those observations.
I believe the theory that He does. Neither of these theories can be proven, 100%, until we die. That, my friend, is a fact.
So, you say. Different philosophers have had differing opinions on this matter.
Kant said being we are bound by our evolved faculties we can never know the Noumenon, just as a blind man can never know color. We see colors the way we do because our eye structure, yet another animal sees the same color differently, so what is true color? Different beings extract a different picture of reality based on their faculties. Objects are over 99% empty space. If we had better eyes things wouldn't look solid, etc. This is Kant's view.
But other philosophers have believed that our reasoning powers and the ability to measure and do mathematics can provide us with a good understanding of nature, and that the question of particular gods can be proved or disproved by such tools. This is how we know things are more than 99% empty space apart from our eyes. Who is right?
You say your view is a fact, but what is your ground to base that on? It could very well be that we can prove or disprove certain gods, depending on their qualities and attributes. And those gods that people say cannot be proved or disproved, do we really have to take such invisible beings seriously without any substantial evidence that they even really exist?