Originally posted by twhiteheadThat is no different than all things man gets wrong isn't it? We think
As I pointed out previously the easiest solution is to prove that the definition of the God in question is incoherent.
For example 'supernatural' is in itself an incoherent word and practically on its own renders most gods non existent.
Have you watched that Monty Python movie (I forget which one) where God disappears in a puff of logic?
X,Y,Z is true reality shows us it isn't so we dismiss X,Y,Z. If the Big
Bang didn't happen has as much chance as being disproved as God
between the ears of some, but the reality of both God and the Big
Bang does not rest on what man thinks about them, the Big Bang
either happened or it didn't, or God is alive or not, what we think does
not add to or take away from either of those as far as reality is
concern.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, Monty Python as always is illogical - intentionally so. It makes you think.
That is no different than all things man gets wrong isn't it? We think
X,Y,Z is true reality shows us it isn't so we dismiss X,Y,Z. If the Big
Bang didn't happen has as much chance as being disproved as God
between the ears of some, but the reality of both God and the Big
Bang does not rest on what man thinks about them, the Big Bang
either happened or ...[text shortened]... ink does
not add to or take away from either of those as far as reality is
concern.
Kelly
Disproving the existence of God would not change reality nor make some entity disappear, all it would to is give us information about the facts - possibly disillusioning some of us.
Even if my technique is used successfully it does not rule out all possible gods, but rather shows that a particular definition is incoherent and the person claiming that that definition reflects the properties of an existent entity is wrong. He may have some properties right, but he necessarily has some wrong.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI do believe the movie you're thinking of is the old BBC version of the "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" (still a favourite, despite the low budget, somewhat spotty acting and underwhelming special effects 🙂). Nerd helmets on!! 😀
Have you watched that Monty Python movie (I forget which one) where God disappears in a puff of logic?
*****
Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next pedestrian crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid from making a small fortune from it in his best-selling novel Well That About Wraps It Up For God.
Originally posted by PBE6You must be right, I have got it mixed up, though for some reason I distinctly remember it happening after the killer rabbit in "The Holy Grail". I am not sure if I have even seen the BBC version of "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", but I have read the books and seen the more recent version of the movie.
I do believe the movie you're thinking of is the old BBC version of the "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" (still a favourite, despite the low budget, somewhat spotty acting and underwhelming special effects 🙂). Nerd helmets on!! 😀