(August 21, 2018 at 8:24 pm)Fireball Wrote:(August 21, 2018 at 5:33 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I'd add, to the above, that the "you don't know, you can't know" objection works equally well with all of the gods people do rule out. You don't know whether or not there's a Zues planet. A Jesus Planet. A Thor planet. You can't.
Are any of those planets really more or less improbable than a dragon planet, since we're positing the existence of planets on the other side of the universe where human fiction miraculously accords with reality?
Should a person have to know about them to know..in effect, anything (as this example can be repeated with absolutely any proposition)?
While we're on the subject of the universe..and things on the other side of it. Could anything actually be omniscient if it didn't know what was happening right here on this side of the universe, right now? Seems like it's "knowledge engine" whatever that is..would have to move quite a bit faster than the speed of light to inform it of what I'm thinking right here..if it was on the other side of the universe (in addition to being able to read my mind...ofc). Anywhoo, these are the continuity errors that keep me, personally, giggling about gods.
It's the Russell's Teapot fallacy, for all those things claimed to exist without proof. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Sure, if I were arguing that gods exist, but we just can’t see them, which I’m not. I’m arguing that there could be something that’s a reasonable approximation, but that there’s still no reason to think that there is. In addition, none of the gods any human has ever described to my knowledge exist, and I feel certain of it.
