Quote:
|
Originally Posted by protagonist
That's very closeminded. You're assuming that all gods are exactly as their holy text describes them
|
I'm doing no such thing.
You're assuming that the only conceivable gods are those that have been worshipped by humans. In actuality there are trillions of mutually-exclusive feasible entities, all qualifying for the description 'god'. In choosing one, you reject all the others. On what grounds could anybody possibly argue that theirs is more valid than another? If you roll an infinity-sided dice, what's the probability of getting a six?
Quote:
|
Are there any non-bloated ones?
|
Certainly there are. I believe I even linked you to one a short time ago.
But any such theory is necessarily built around a core of uncertainty. What you are advocating is a god of the gaps - an entity invented to fill holes in our knowledge by migrating our ignorance. You create a god to explain the universe but you don't explain why
he exists. Any argument you use is just a more bloated version of an atheistic equivalent.
Quote:
|
I am challenging you to provide a better idea.
|
A better idea than what? A chaotic universe? I already explained that it isn't a prerequisite for godlessness. And besides, I don't have any means of deciding whether an ordered universe is better or more logical than a chaotic one. Neither do you.
Summary: If you can't defend a statement, don't make it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zethar
take a wild guess, poindexter.
|
Because it hurts your feelings? Because you'll smack me down!? D=
Nobody is afraid of you. You are weak and insignificant. I'll do whatever the heck I like, and I won't ask for your permission first
