View Single Post
Old 11-07-2012, 23:55   #28
the wrong hands
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Originally Posted by Harper View Post
I don't know if there's a standard term for this concept but I've thought about how some ideas may or may not be true but regardless in its place there is what you might call "functional truth". Let me explain, someone asked me once "What if everything we know is wrong and everything we think we know is an illusion and there's really something else controlling the universe?". You know the old 'what if we're just part of someone's imagination' type question. I thought for a second and said "Who cares, everything we understand consistently operates under repeatable laws. So if you're right then I guess it changes nothing."

And once you open the "what if anything is possible" box then I guess anything is possible. If your hypothesis isn't based on evidence or needs to adhere to logic or physics then no one else's does either.

So once you ask if a supernatural being exists, you've by definition created an unprovable problem. So does God exists in someplace we can't explore? It doesn't matter. It would be different if our understanding of physical laws relied on the existence of God but it's not like if God didn't exist our equations for momentum or electric current would have huge holes in them. Functionally, no, God doesn't exist.
Those "what if" scenarios are just the last ditch effort from some people to support their unsupported assertions. Pascal's wager flows here like cheap wine right along with every other flawed argument ever devised by man. No matter how many times all those arguments are shot down they keep coming back like they've never been addressed simply because that's all they have. If there was something better then someone somewhere would have brought it up and the rest would have latched onto it out of sheer desperation to present a better argument than they have been yet that never happens.

This is why a thread about atheism being a religion can go on to infinity simply because one person can't accept that his entire argument hinges on one definition in one dictionary. That's all he has so that's what he sticks with. If there was something better you can bet that he of all people would find and present it. The only other option would be to admit defeat and that's just unacceptable when you think you're fighting the devil.
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote