mike the wiz writes:
The problem is the comparison-table only suggests comparisons with things likely to be fiction. The adult mind innately knows that which is superficial and phoney or that which has no depth. Holy cows, Thor, Loki, etc, we know that these things are likely caused by primitive invention.
The comparison-table compares things that all have no objective evidence at all. Not even any objective evidence pointing in their direction.
It's not anyone's fault that the only things we know of that have "no object evidence at all" are "things likely to be fiction" or that "we know these things are likely caused by primitive invention."
If God fits the same mold... that's exactly what the comparison-table is intended to show.
For example our God is not physically detectable, and neither is a type of boson in another universe, so why not compare God to an undetectable type of higgs boson?
Because there is objective evidence that "some type" of a higgs boson exists right here in our local universe. We have that objective evidence. You can learn about it you'd like.
But, again, there is no objective evidence that "some type" of a God exists right here in our local universe.
The only other things with "no objective evidence of any kind" are those things that are known to be fiction - hence the comparison-table.
CONCLUSION: The error is in assuming that God can only be compared to things rigged to be false things, without comparing Him to things we don't know are false.
No.
The comparison-table contains only those things that have "no objective evidence of any kind."
The problem (for you) is that things we "aren't sure about are true - but think they likely exist here or there where we haven't tested yet..." are still based upon having objective evidence for them in places where we have been able to test.
Therefore - they don't belong in the table because they have more than "no objective evidence of any kind."
God us undetectable and invisible, but this doesn't mean God is comparable to a holy cow or an I.P.U necessarily because we also know there were many things which used to be undetectable and invisible but they turned out to be true, such as the higgs boson.
God - no objective evidence, not known to be made up
Holy Cow or I.P.U - no objective evidence, known to be made up
Higgs boson - some objective evidence exsits, known to not be made up
The comparison-table is built upon the first section - those things with "no objective evidence."
The difference of knowing if something is made up or not is irrelevant. It's only relevant to those who want to cling to a belief that God is real and hide from the obvious implications.
So my request is that I compare Jesus Christ to other historical figures such as Ghandi or Caesar rather than playing the infantile game of the atheist by comparing God to invisible, pink unicorns and Santa.
But, again, we have objective evidence of Ghandi or Caesar.
The point of the comparison-table is to list all things that have no objective evidence.
You can have this table, too... but it doesn't negate the factual existence (or the obvious implications) that God must be included on any list of things with "no objective evidence" along with all the known-to-be fictional ideas.
Why can't we compare abiogenesis and evolution to other fairytales since they share the same method of "long ago and far away"...
Because abiogenesis and evolution either have objective evidence, or they have objective evidence pointing in their direction.
Holy Cow? Not so much -> bucket #2
God? Not so much -> bucket #2
It's not anyone's fault that God deserves to be in the same "no objective evidence" bucket #2.
Of course, you can get God out of that bucket. Just provide some objective evidence. Or, even, provide objective evidence showing a level of confidence in the direction of God's existence.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
