<I'm not able to prove the presence of some human-loving supernatural deity, but would be able to if I came up with evidence. I'm not holding my breath. On the contrary, I'm betting that humans are just another primate. That theory fits best with the things which people do. Why invent some absurd imaginary spook to explain things when there are perfectly simple explanations which fit the facts. >
You wrote: "I don't think you've exhausted all the options."
CB, there was no need to give more than one example to compare with what I think is the actual explanation. Any number of other explanations also exist, as you say. But that's irrelevant to my point. Bear in mind this isn't a legal argument. This is a logical discussion.
It's not subject to a vote, nor a legal definition where some legal system might declare that water flows uphill and the world is flat and therefore they are ipso facto facts.
Politicians and lawyers have a belief that they define reality by the mere definition and enforcement of their beliefs, [at least until nature rudely intercedes, as it relentlessly, mercilessly and inescapably does]. If they can get a jury or judge to accept some absurdity, they think they have created something real, which they have for their limited purposes. Seekers after the truth look at things differently. [It is hilarious that truth is claimed to be part of political and judicial processes - they are all about power and assigning property rights, usually involving theft from the creator of property].
<Given the vastness of the Universe, God may not give mankind any more (or less) attention or notice than a quark, a quantum, an electron, an atom, a molecule, a grain of sand, a planet, a solar system, or a galaxy. >
Yes, the Great Green Goddess/God/SuperSpook whatever you want to make up or define, might be anything or nothing, focusing on humans, a particular neutrino or any number of imaginative ideas. That's irrelevant to my point.
Mqurice |
