(January 18, 2012 at 6:55 am)apophenia Wrote: If this was your point, then you've lost round one. The Christian can simply assert that we do not live in a naturalistic universe (perhaps cosmos would be a better term), and you're left proving a negative to prosecute your case. Good luck with that.
Well either it looks like a natural universe because it is
...or...
there's really all this sorcery, angelic activity faith healing and other such going on under the radar and somehow it's all been kept under wraps thanks to a monomaniacal god who likes to remain hidden.
Occam's Razor. I win.
Quote:If you can't demonstrate that God has no possible reason for the change in affairs, you're left with nothing but a silly look on your face.
Or I can say, "Burden of proof. I win."
Quote:"God is mysterious." QED. Cue the fat lady.
The Occam's Razor card trumps the "Mysterious and stuff" card.
I think we may be close to the point of we agree to disagree. I think that having a holy book that depicts a universe which is radically different from the one that clearly exists all around us is a seriously problem. You don't. There you are.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
