On Hell and Forgiveness

[polymath257]

Well, my garden grows and the gnomes and unicorns are what makes my garden grow, so they must exist, right?

It isn't the simple invisibility that produces the problem. It is the undetectability by any means that is the problem.

So your argument is that the garden grows, therefore gnomes and unicorns. With the secondary argument that since you can not detect them, they must be invisible.

This just seems like bad logic as is. There is no connection between the premise and the conclusion. Are you saying that bad reasoning; means that one is delusional?  Because I find this to be bad reasoning.

This also seems to be a rather naive and childlike understanding of the arguments as an analogy. It seems more of a charicature than analogous to Christianity or religious arguments.  Perhaps you should try stating your reasoning more directly without the analogy.

Well, I consider most of the arguments for religion to be at this level of childishness. It really isn't a caricature. There is a claim that everything needs a cause (incorrectly, by the way) and immediately claims that some ultimate cause is God. How is that any different than someone claiming their garden grows because of gnomes and unicorns?

I think maybe *you* should state your reasoning concerning God in a way that doesn't immediately apply to gnomes and unicorns.

---

No, I really think there is no connection between the arguments and 'evidence' of most religions and the actual claims they make.

And yes, in this case, the person believing in gnomes and unicorns is delusional, not just mistaken.

I also do not think that someone being convinced or not convinced by evidence or reason, the same as you, is a correct usage of the word delusional.

But believing that undetectable things that cannot be measured are causing everything all around us *is* delusional.

Maybe we should ask this: what would it take for you to say that belief in gnomes in my garden is delusional?