The Devil's advocate

[Guest guest]

> Have you been talking to all atheists?

 

That's not necessary. They all say the same things It's funny, but you

always hear this comments from atheists, how religionists all sound the

same. Well, it fires back because all atheists sound the same. They say the

exact same things. It seems as if they cannot very well think for

themselves. They always repeat what they have heard from other atheists.

 

> Aren't you a little prejudiced here

> Prabhu!?!

 

Of course I am. Is there anything wrong with being prejudiced? You are

certainly very prejudiced towards any notion of God, so you shouldn't have

any problems with being prejudiced, right?

 

> 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?

 

If you don't find the logical arguments of God reasonable, then obviously we

don't have the same definition of reasonable. What's your definition of

reasonable?

 

> >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?

 

Well, why can't there be little pink, invisible unicorns living under my

bed? I am talking about what's within our experience. Within our experience

of the universe, everything is constantly undergoing the three phases of

creation, maintainance and destruction. The only element, again as far as we

can observe, that is not undergoing these three phases, is the self, or the

sense of I-ness. For instance, it is not within anyone's experience of ever

having been created or destroyed. Your only experience is of being

conscious.

 

>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.

 

So you admit that your conception of the universe, so far, is just your

religion. It is not backed up by hard, empirical facts. Very good. You are

making advancement.

 

> 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?

 

Why should we name it natural selection? It seems you have just replaced the

word God with natural selection.

 

> >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.

 

Ok, fair enough. So what kind of empirical proof, perceivable by one of your

five senses, would you accept as proof of God?

 

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

> >you mean.

>

> It simply means "ways of getting knowledge."

 

Ok, so which ways of getting knowledge do you accept?

 

>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.

 

I can give you very good reasons, but I suspect we don't have the same

definitions of good, so before I launch into all the good reasons for

believing in God, please define what you mean by 'good reason.'

 

 

> Regards,

> The Devil's advocate

 

Kind regards

from the voice of reason