EvF -
I know that I'm assuming. I can't help it any more than you can help assuming that this physical world is all there is. You see the physical world, you see nothing else, and assume that what you can see is all there is. I see the physical world, I see nothing else, and I assume that I'm not capable of seeing all there is. Which is more reasonable, assuming that what you're capable of seeing is all there is, or assuming that you are limited in what you can see?
I'll throw this into the mix, see what you make of it. I haven't read it all myself : http://www.does-god-exist.net/reality-check.html
I know that I'm assuming. I can't help it any more than you can help assuming that this physical world is all there is. You see the physical world, you see nothing else, and assume that what you can see is all there is. I see the physical world, I see nothing else, and I assume that I'm not capable of seeing all there is. Which is more reasonable, assuming that what you're capable of seeing is all there is, or assuming that you are limited in what you can see?
I'll throw this into the mix, see what you make of it. I haven't read it all myself : http://www.does-god-exist.net/reality-check.html