(February 6, 2013 at 11:12 am)Drich Wrote:(February 6, 2013 at 1:15 am)Stimbo Wrote: Up to you mate. There's only so much mileage to be gained out of trying to push one's head through a brick wall. I will just make the observation that "basic common sense" is seldom basic, sadly not very common and often nonsense. How it applies to god claims I've no idea.
What if the goal is to simply get through the wall?
Then I would find a way to get over, or go around, the wall. I don't consider myself an irresistible force (oh how I wish...), so you must forgive me for experiencing human feelings of frustration when faced with an immovable object.
(February 6, 2013 at 11:12 am)Drich Wrote: The common sense was employed to see past a 'logic' that would not allow for the presents of "proof" to encompass the being "proof" was required of. In otherwords somehow it is logical to say (to the point of riticule) That having God present or rather you being made aware of the presents of God is not considered 'proof.' Even if that is what you are looking for.
I would never disallow evidence, let alone 'proof', that purports to support a claim. Give me something I can sink my teeth into and I'll chew it over. The most I've ever seen dished up are the usual warmed-over apologetic table scraps and unsatisfying platitudinous gristle. They may be carefully presented with touches of garnish here and there, but ultimately their nourishment value is deeply lacking.
Let's try an analogy. You stand in court accused of some sundry crime. The prosecution builds its case on claims that you did the deed, but the jury is expected to believe that the claims are evidence enough to convict you. At best the case hinges on promises of third party testimony which is never presented, from a single witness who is never identified and never appears to testify. Based on your words above, and considering that potentially many years of your life are at stake, would this be a fair trial?
(February 6, 2013 at 11:12 am)Drich Wrote: What kind of crazy it that? When I am looking for something I stop looking when I find it. Because I found what I was looking for. I don't keep looking because I need some sort of other 'proof' that what I found was what I was looking for.
Exactly. If it were something tangible, such as car keys, to carry on looking for them after you find them would indeed be pointless. Yet "God" is the ultimate investigation-killer, the ultimate non-answer. "God" is sold as the explanation for everything from the Origins of Everything to the whims of the weather. Why did an earthquake destroy such-and-such city and kill thousands of people? God. Where did flesh-eating bacteria come from? God. What makes water wet? God. Why did the chicken cross the road? God. Who put the ram in the rama-lama-ding-dong? Wait, wait, don't tell me; I know this one...
Ever see that Simpsons episode with Lucy Lawless at a sci-fi convention, fielding audience questions about Xena? She was asked to explain certain plot holes and production errors in the series, to which she replied "It's really quite simple. Every time you see something like that, a wizard did it." For ten points, can you identify why that is an unsatisfying answer?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
