If You Could Ask God ONE QUESTION

[appolose]

tombi123 said:

appolose said:

tombi123 said:

True. I should have put 'seems to have no cause'. Although because of the absence of evidence, the logical view is always the skeptical view, ie, it has (seems to have) no cause. Much like the the existence of God. There is no evidence for the existence of God therefore he (probably) doesn't exist, until you can provide evidence for his existence.

 

 

 This is untrue; assuming nonexistence is no more logical than assuming existence, even if we were to think that probability lends anything to logic (you don't have to assume anything, so it's not a logical necessity to assume anything).  Furthermore, it's not more probable that God does not exist than he does exist if we're saying there is proof for neither.  Because if there isn't, how could we say one is more likely than the other?  Skepticism is not a necessary assumption.

So do you think Middle Earth has an equal likelihood of existing then it does at not existing? How about Father Christmas? The Tooth Fairy? Harry Potter? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? There is no evidence that these exist, they were made up by humans.

 

 Are you implying that absurdity is a proof against existence?  Because, if you are, then you would have a reason to disbelieve it, as then the evidence would tip in favor of nonexistence.  But if absurdity is not (which it isn't), in and of itself, proof against, then there is no reason to assume something doesn't exist.  And, when you get right down to it, saying this computer I'm typing on exists is no less absurd than saying the flying spaghetti monster does.