RE: Evidence??
October 19, 2015 at 7:24 am
(This post was last modified: October 19, 2015 at 7:26 am by Fidel_Castronaut.)
What evidence is there that 'God' is by default 'impressive'?
To date humans have done things that eclipse the impressiveness of anything any 'God' has ever been evidenced to have done.
To the OP, there was a poster once on af.com who posited that her God was rain, and that its existence was self-evident and impressive. You can't argue with that as evidence because, well, rain does exist and it is impressive in what it can do. However, it was a leap too far to conclude that it was a 'god' rather than just water and the odd other chemical included within it without something more compelling that 'it's a/my God'.
People who posit a deity also are unable to get around the issue of a being that hypothetically is proven to exist with near infinite power but which isn't a God (eg. The Q for Star Trek). But that's another hurdle to jump.
To date humans have done things that eclipse the impressiveness of anything any 'God' has ever been evidenced to have done.
To the OP, there was a poster once on af.com who posited that her God was rain, and that its existence was self-evident and impressive. You can't argue with that as evidence because, well, rain does exist and it is impressive in what it can do. However, it was a leap too far to conclude that it was a 'god' rather than just water and the odd other chemical included within it without something more compelling that 'it's a/my God'.
People who posit a deity also are unable to get around the issue of a being that hypothetically is proven to exist with near infinite power but which isn't a God (eg. The Q for Star Trek). But that's another hurdle to jump.
![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
