(March 2, 2010 at 12:12 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: The argument goes like this, "If you believe in only things that you can touch and see, how can you believe Australia Exists?" Basically to prop up the idea that a materialist ideology is insufficient in asserting the existence of a country you've never been to. However it's a fallacious argument because you can assert Australia (or in this case, China) exists because we can see maps of Australia, we can call someone in Australia, we can meet people from Australia, etc...This is not sufficient proof of Australia or China. The maps can be entirely doctored, total bullshit made up by people who want you to believe in China. Not only can you not prove that the calls are to people really from China, you can't prove that the person on the other end is even real or in the real place known as China.
Quote:The same idea applies to God in the sense that if he is real and exerts some type of influence on the reality we see, we could test it and come to a conclusion, but that's not the case.What sort of influence do you want to see? For me, there are all kinds of examples of His influence.
Quote:As I've said many times before, if God is a transcendant being that does not influence this world, then why worship? If he does, then we should be able to substantially test for it.He is a transcendant being but that does not mean that He does not influence this world. You are simply looking for the wrong kind of influence. Everythin gis connected. Look at the bigger picture.
Oh, and Saerules, I'm quite interested- why do you disagree that nothing can be new? It isn't a dig at what you said, I'm just curious to hear some food for thought.
