reply to post by chr0naut
An omnipotent tyrannical lunatic would not allow a dissenting voice so the existence and publication of your suggestion itself disproves that.
Seriously? Okay ATS members, everyone reading this thread. Look this one over. Supposedly, my dissenting voice should have been squashed by an
omnipotent tyrannical lunatic, so my continued objections are proof that not only does this "God" exist, but he is also benevolent.
Er...what? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that could easily be proof that your "God" doesn't exist at all. At this point, it could go either
way. But if we look at the larger picture, I'm inclined to suggest that it leans more toward my point of view than yours. Once again, I am not
denying divinity. I am, one, saying that the modern definition of divinity is sorely lacking due to our lack of scientific finesse and whimsical
fancies carried over from more archaic belief systems, and two, that divinity has nothing to do with anything even remotely human. Therefore, even my
understanding is rudimentary. But still contrary to yours.
Either way, your case, as presented in the quote above, is laughably flimsy at best.
As for imaginary, if God is at the root cause of our existence, then our existence proves God. But of course, it is based upon individual
perspective as to how we interpret our existence and purpose (or lack thereof).
And as with all cases of interpretation, we are very strongly tempted to use our incredible gift of doublethink to interpret these heavily influential
concepts in such a way that we garner power with which to secure our lives in case our afterlife doesn't turn out to be entirely satisfying.
So see, there's much more reason to pretend there is a god, than there is to admit there isn't a god. With that in mind, all spiritual cases
involving deities or any form of higher power should be closely examined, due to the overwhelming temptation to give in to our fears and hopes. We are
very much emotion-based, and that makes all the difference in how we see things.
But again, because of the reasons for pretending there is a god, we choose to be negligent in our examinations. It doesn't help that all records are
so fallible that we must either choose to filter the cream of the crop, or ignore them entirely. It's easier and more desirable to take what we can
than to ignore them, for the same reasons we are looking at them to begin with. After all, the idea of a god is much more powerful than the reality of
a god, if you get my drift.
I hope that makes sense.