Riqtay said:
You can obviously measure hunger. It is obvious that you have read many books on hunger and I believe you in that hunger can be measured. But you havn't provided any evidence of someone actually seeing hunger.
I do not need to. Material evidence comes in many forms, as well as logical inferences based on such evidence. You do not have to be able to see something directly using just your bare eyes to prove that it is there. So again, the analogy is not relevant.
(PS. I have not actually read books on hunger, though I did a psychobiology subject a few years ago.)
Riqtay said:
Hunger put simply cannot be seen. I am not disputing wheter hunger can be measured or not. You cannot take a photograph of hunger as I've said earlier. Hunger cannot be seen or smelt.
As I said, it does not matter that you cannot see it plainly with your eyes. You can prove that it exists using material evidence and logical inferences.
Riqtay said:
Also if you believe my argument doesn't prove the existence of God, then that is perfectly fine as it is your own opinion. Yet you cannot prove the non-existence of God.
I did not claim that God does not exist. I said that you cannot prove either way.
(Note that you can attempt to disprove certain
conceptions of God, based on logic -- for example the argument that, should a God actually exist, it could not be all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing, since the reality of suffering on Earth would mean there is a contradiction.)