happydolphin said:
The arrogance argument is applicable in all options (deism and atheism). The reason is that a deist would be arrogant to consider himself the center of the universe (which isn't true anyways), as much as the atheist could be arrogant for considering not needing a God to exist, were that true (which is a poor accusation but it's as valid as yours). Anyways arrogance does not indicate veracity (or the absence of it). The possibility was from the point of view of Christianity. It's only possible if it's true that Yahwe is a fabrication of the human mind, which unlike your "proof" of the greek gods being so is far from proven to be a pure fabrication, we won't even get into that. As for proof of God's existence, there is substancial proof but I'm not interested in that debate with you. Also, the vagueness of anyone's speech does not prove anything. Someone can be vague due to the resistance of the listener, someone can be vague because he is lying, while another is vague because he prefers the litterary style of something that is less exact. Vagueness, again, proves nothing. This has to do with macro evolution and multi-verses in that, to me, that is a fairy tale and you have NO way to prove to me the contrary, as I have no way to prove to you that God is real. They each have their evidence and need to be considered individually, not sweepingly like this. The idea of God being super-human doesn't make the concept a lie. There is little foundation to your logic. It's not because one is "proven" or even convincingly false that another one is... For example Christianity involves a historical figure (Jesus and the apostles and disciples), we can read about them. The Greek gods also have this (homer's Odysee and the Illyad), but they are not as reliable for instance as the biblical texts. Not to mention that much of Jewish history is embedded in biblical narrative. |
Do you know why youre not right in your stance of everything is possible and nothing is disproven and should be look at as a clean slate? Because it doesnt make sense to ignore the past examples. You basically are refusing to learn.
Say if i asked you to borrow me 5 euros from the kindness of your heart, and for the sake of proving the point you would. I had no intention to return them and then i would ask you to borrow me 6 euros, and wouldnt return them, then next time 7 euros and the same thing, etc. According to your logic, you would lend me the money everytime because you would believe i would return the money everytime cause its a new situation that should be analysed from a clean slate, even though i would never return it. Its the same thing with religion. Its the same story told in a different way, but still as much the product of the human mind, just like the ones before it. We just dont have the technology to disprove it like we do with the greek gods yet, but logic certainly nails it.
You are free to refuse the logic, but that its there, it is.
