tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post9016611031604608276..comments2023-07-27T05:49:05.756-07:00Comments on C. Orthodoxy: Divine InvisibilityKen Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08014885672703727636noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-38743777207913347542007-10-30T18:04:00.000-07:002007-10-30T18:04:00.000-07:00Thanks Alex, and I like your illustrations. I was ...Thanks Alex, and I like your illustrations. <BR/><BR/>I was thinking about writing a post on Bertrand Russell's "cosmic teapot" for tomorrow, but Bill Vallicella has already discussed it better than I can <A HREF="http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1176260461.shtml" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1169851433.shtml" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>There does seem to be this strange disconnect when it comes to "evidence" for God's existence. On the one hand, atheists will insist that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" such that the theist can <I>never</I> meet the burden of proof they demand. But if it is pointed out that this merely begs the question in favor of naturalism, they then claim that we should at least expect the same kind of evidence for God as we would demand for any other claim. Yet even this latter requirement is absurd: God is not just another "fact" about the universe; if he exists, he is much more akin to the universe itself - the ground upon which all other "facts" rest.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I wrote <A HREF="http://salvomag.typepad.com/blog/2006/06/god-and-the-log.html" REL="nofollow">a post</A> on this subject last summer at Signs of the Times.Ken Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014885672703727636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-76020855651217840132007-10-30T17:11:00.000-07:002007-10-30T17:11:00.000-07:00Good post.I get fed up of the constant demand to "...Good post.<BR/><BR/>I get fed up of the constant demand to "prove" God exists. There are documented miracles and there are historical texts as well as witnesses to go by, these are ignored however.<BR/><BR/>It's like me asking you to prove that Mick Jagger can sing by ordering you to bring him round to my house for a private audience.<BR/><BR/>I can simply choose to ignore the recordings/fans/album sales because I haven't personally met him. Therefore, because I have selectively chosen my criteria for evidence, you are at a loss to prove he can sing unless you are Mick Jagger himself.<BR/><BR/>The other stupid argument is comparing God to flying teapots and spaghetti. God was not created as a counter-argument to atheism. The bible makes no effort to prove the existence of God, it's just a given that He exists (rather, the bible focuses on how we should live with God).<BR/><BR/>Prove to me man has set foot on the moon- BUT you are not allowed to refer to historical documents (written before my time), personal testimony (unreliable), videos (subject to manipulation). Pretty soon you will be exasperated trying to prove to me that man set foot on the moon because of my limited selection criteria for verifiable proof.<BR/><BR/>You say man has set foot on the moon, I say there is no more proof that man has set foot on the moon than he has set foot on Wookieland (a fictional planet I have just made up to ridicule your claim).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com