Um burden of proof?
What's the argument against the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Flying Teapot?
Burden of proof is on the believer not the non-believer.
Other than that - that its just that God cannot just "happen" and you cannot definite him to have just "been there" when if he created the universe he would have to be at least as complex and improbable as the universe itself.
You know the whole infinite regress thing. And Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 argument.
If there's going to be a terminator it would be so simple why call it God?
'God As A Physical Constant.'
[youtube]oP8LpS90lH8[/youtube]
If anyone is interested enough in this video it can be moved to start a thread in itself in the video forum.
I think its a very good clip.
Evf
What's the argument against the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Flying Teapot?
Burden of proof is on the believer not the non-believer.
Other than that - that its just that God cannot just "happen" and you cannot definite him to have just "been there" when if he created the universe he would have to be at least as complex and improbable as the universe itself.
You know the whole infinite regress thing. And Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 argument.
If there's going to be a terminator it would be so simple why call it God?
'God As A Physical Constant.'
[youtube]oP8LpS90lH8[/youtube]
If anyone is interested enough in this video it can be moved to start a thread in itself in the video forum.
I think its a very good clip.
Evf