Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bingle
So basically, don't dismiss such things so readily - while you may feel one way, there's a long history of considering the proof of the existence of God, and you should consider the arguments and come to your own conclusion. Some religious philosophers have come to some surprising ones, like the aforementioned Kirkegaard.
|
So, in there being good arguments from both sides, could you not conclude that the existence (or lack thereof) of a god
could be proven, but have not yet??? What I think you are saying is basically I don't have an educated opinion about whether a god exists or not, but I choose to believe that there is one anyway. In turn, I think you are in a different kind of reality where you define reality by what you think it is. Look, I'm all for thinking outside of the box, but you're not being very realistic. Logically, you can't prove completely the existence of a god, or the lack of one. You can come to conclusions as to the possibilities, and granted I haven't looked into past philosopher's work on this, but this isn't a case of possibilities. Two distinct possibilities exist, and you can come up with logical explainations for both, but at the end of the day, they're still only thoughts, not substance. Until somebody sees god, there still exists the possibility of not being one. Much like anything. Say, for instance, that I told you I had a cat. You came to my house, saw cat hair on my furniture, a bowl full of cat food, and a litter box. Now, there still exists a reasonable possibility that there is no cat, although logic and reasoning would tell you differenty.