What I pointed out was that if two faith based beliefs contradict each other, both cannot logically be true.
If for example Hinduism is true or right and Brahman is the creative principle of the universe, the Abrahamic faiths must be wrong because their's is a different God and a different theology...and that's without going into the differences between Judaism, Islam and Christianity.
So the issue is, someone has to be wrong. Everybody cannot be right.
This is logic, not arrogance.
No, it's arrogance plain and simple. You apply one standard to religion and another to science, which is an incontrovertible demonstration of your inherent bias. And arrogance. So I'll ask the question ask gain, the one you failed to answer. This time I'll put it in your terms:
If two theories are contradictory, are both negated?
And here's another for you: Are all people with faith-based beliefs creationists?
SP, it's simple set theory. For practical purposes, all creationist claims are faith-based, but not all people of faith are creationist.
As for how do you logically approach two contradictory hypothesis, each must face it's own burden of proof. Proving A wrong does not make B true. It's possible both could be wrong.
As an example, if tomorrow the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection was proven wrong, that doesn't mean "god(s) did it", after all, there's other hypothesis like magic pixies, the computer simulation, or Gus's favorite, Aliens did it. Disproving any one of these doesn't prove any other, each requires it's own evidence.
Thanks for the reply, but it was really a rhetorical question intended to show DBT that contradictions between different faith-based beliefs don't negate all faith-based beliefs.
