The Devil's advocate

[Guest guest]

>> >> Hey you Jahnu Prabhu!!! Prove God or admit defeat!!!

>>

>> >hehe. ok. I can definitely prove God to you, but first I need to know:

>>

>> >What will you accept as proof?

>>

>> Well, a logic argument or some empirical proof.

 

>We have already been through every conceivable logical arguments with the

>atheists, and it is clear they don't accept common logic. Every time we

>come

>up with a logical argument, they counter with an illogical one.

 

Have you been talking to all atheists? Aren't you a little prejudiced here

Prabhu!?! I'm definitely open to any type of reasonable argument for the

existence of God. In fact, I would LOVE to hear one. Unfortunately no theist

has ever shown me any logical proof which I found reasonable. All it takes

for you is to come with such an argument. Is that too much to ask?

 

>For instance we point out that the universe seems like a huge clock work so

>therefore it is logical to assume that there is a clock maker behind it,

>but, no, no, the atheist say. The fact that the universe is like a clock

>work seems to us to indicate that it came about by itself without any

>intelligent direction. So logic is obviously wasted on you, O atheist.

 

Well, why can't the universe just have existed forever with all it's

complexity? We might not understand everything about the universe know, but

science shows that we have good reasons to think that the laws behind the

universe are very simple. So simple that in the future we can wear them on

the front of a T-shirt. And the wacth-maker analogy is simply an analogy. We

can't take such analogies as certain proof of anything. Even if it was a

good analogy we can't even know anything about the intelligence, or

intelligences, behind the world. Why should we name it God?

 

>As for empirical proof, please tell me what kind of empirical proof would

>convince you of God's existence.

 

Well, something I can sense, of course! I have 5 senses, and if you say that

I have more senses, then I'm also open to that if you provide GOOD REASONS

to think so. For now I only see reasons to think I have 5 senses.

 

>>But I'm also open to other

>> kinds of epistemological methods if you have any, as long as you give me

>>a

>> GOOD REASON to believe such epistemological methods are actually valid.

 

>I don't understand what you mean by epistemological. Please define what you

>mean.

 

It simply means "ways of getting knowledge." So if you can give me GOOD

REASONS to think that the way of knowledge you present are valid, then I

will, of course, try it out.

 

Regards,

The Devil's advocate