I wanted to bring up a quick topic before bed, it was an argument presented by Jen Peeples on the Atheist Experience which I'm sure many of you are familiar with.
The model she was presenting comprised of three jars, one jar had a set of dice in it, another had nothing at all and the third had 'trancendant dice'. Of course it is only a model, you won't likely find Trancendant dice at Wal-mart but, if you do phone the cops.
The trick was, when she told you what jar had what it was easy but, if she switched them up on you, you could not tell which jar had nothing and which jar had 'trancendant dice' in it. You had no tools or tests that could possibly determine the difference.
Obviously I don't need to beat around the bush, the 'trancendant dice' represented god. And to assume that those dice, or god exist you have to change the definition of existance to include things that you cannot know if they exist, thus destroying the meaning of the word.
The jars make it evident that in order to say god exists, one must be willing to knowingly change the meaning of the word existence, to include it's opposite because we have no way on this earth to tell the difference between a trancendant or invisible god, from absolutely nothing.
So, does anyone have any comments on the subject? Things you would add to the model or flaws you found in it. It seems sound to me but, I'd be interested to find flaws to see if they can be corrected or if the model fails in it's objective.
The model she was presenting comprised of three jars, one jar had a set of dice in it, another had nothing at all and the third had 'trancendant dice'. Of course it is only a model, you won't likely find Trancendant dice at Wal-mart but, if you do phone the cops.
The trick was, when she told you what jar had what it was easy but, if she switched them up on you, you could not tell which jar had nothing and which jar had 'trancendant dice' in it. You had no tools or tests that could possibly determine the difference.
Obviously I don't need to beat around the bush, the 'trancendant dice' represented god. And to assume that those dice, or god exist you have to change the definition of existance to include things that you cannot know if they exist, thus destroying the meaning of the word.
The jars make it evident that in order to say god exists, one must be willing to knowingly change the meaning of the word existence, to include it's opposite because we have no way on this earth to tell the difference between a trancendant or invisible god, from absolutely nothing.
So, does anyone have any comments on the subject? Things you would add to the model or flaws you found in it. It seems sound to me but, I'd be interested to find flaws to see if they can be corrected or if the model fails in it's objective.
