Well, gee, I would hope it would be the Norse creator gods, Odin, Vili, and Vé, who created the world out of the body and blood of the giant frost ogre Ymir.
Then I choose Dionysus, the ultimate party animal! Drinks are on the house - BYOL (bring your own ladder)!
Seconded. If this is a voting thing.
"That the best thing for a man is not to be born, and if already born, to die as soon as possible."
Premise 1: if Pokemon did not exist, then the applicability of math to the natural world would be a happy coincidence.
Premise 2: the applicability of math to the natural world is not a happy coincidence.
Conclusion: Pokemon exists
You see, the main problem with this argument is not that it's evidence for God particularly. Okay, Pokemon was silly, but why isn't it an equally valid argument for Brahma (the Hindu creator), Ahura Mazda (the Zoroastrian creator), or Izanagi and Izanami (the Shinto co-creators)? It's kind of a fill in the blanks argument that works for any number of possible deities. It in no way points directly to the Christian God even if you accept the argument,...
...which you shouldn't. Here's why:
Let's look at Premise 2. Setting aside that the word "Happy" is unnecessary to the validity of the argument, look at it this way: the universe couldn't exist without a structure (what we call the laws of physics), a structure which the human invention we call math simply describes. It may be that our universe is itself an event, possibly a coincidence, that happened in a much larger reality. I regard that as fairly likely, but that's just an opinion.
Pokemon was a good substitution, because the precept is silly. You explained it well.
Isn't it fun, picking out our preferred gods? much nicer to pick one out that doesn't have such appalling relationship issues.
I think is was something along the lines of math being applicable to the natural world because God made it that way and man simply discovered it that way.
I certainly hope that wasn't his argument because that involves proving the second premise by invoking the conclusion. Premises are supposed to support (imply) the conclusion, not vice versa.
You claimed that there is no evidence for the Big Bang ....
Sam made the "historians agree" claim etc
Can we just leave it there please ... Im over it
I didn't say there was no BB, I said there was evidence to support several different theories about the Big Bang - you were saying that without evidence, it didn't happen, and I was demonstrating that evidence can be misleading. Obviously, the Big Bang happened only one way, and we have yet to determine exactly what that one way was, but we're OK with that, the theory will be adjusted as new evidence comes in.
The same with Jesus, or Yeshua, I was 90% convinced he never existed, but though it wasn't evidence, in the classical sense, Steve showed me a perspective I hadn't previously considered, which in my mind, reduced that likelihood to 60%, down from 90%.
NOW we can leave it.
BTW - you still haven't elaborated on why you feel religion is important in the world and should be maintained.
The discovery by Dr. Hubble that the universe is expanding in all directions tells us there was a BB. One simply rolls the expansion backwards as a contraction and it all converges back to a singularity. That is proof enough for the BB, but how BB's happen is (and may always be) an open question.
While I have your attention, if you've grown tired of the bikini girl or Hello Kitty wallpaper on your computer now, go here to find wallpapers of some of the spectacular shots made by Hubble's telescope.
I can't imagine ever getting tired of the bikini girl.
YO -STEVEnCO, OF THE THREAD POLICE - HIJACKING IN PROGRESS!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, that's right - that only applies to me --