(June 9, 2012 at 11:40 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Unlike the Most Tangible God, it is plausible because it doesn't contradict anything in the physical world.
Just because something doesn't contradict something else in the physical world doesn't make it any more valid than it would be otherwise.
Your biggest mistake lies in the fact that you are presenting a subjective God whose only duty in his existence is to fulfill a role on someone's mind as a being who, depending on the person, could do anything from creating the universe and everthing in it 6,000 years ago to acting as a simple unfalsifiable overseer of the universe.
Without evidence, you cannot very well say that something exists simply because it doesn't contradict the universe in any way.
See Russell's teapot.
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
