0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You will have no evidence to give of what you are advancing. Even less proof of your assertion as a bluff. You didn't know.
On the other hand, we can clearly see the restraint and the shyness of what seems to me to be a taboo.
Most gods have siblings.
The existence of Colin proves that there is, or at least once was, enough god to sustain him.
The nonexistence of Colin has no bearing on the existence or otherwise of whatever he might eat.
I feel a song coming on. Possibly channeling Tom Lehrer, in praise of cannibalism.
Tripped over your own logic, my friend. X always destroys (eats, if you will) YTherefore X => NOT(Y), obviouslyBut NOT(X) => POSSIBLE (Y)and we have no evidence of X.Occam demands minimal assumption, thus allows for the existence of a god, edible or otherwise. But then he would, wouldn't he?
you have to prove that Colin doesn't exist.
Colin is much simpler than God
Is it a problem to talk about Zionism and the promised land?
QuoteColin is much simpler than GodYou can't infer that from your stated characteristic of eating god. A virus is a lot simpler than its host, but a predator is usually at least more intelligent than its prey.
No. I merely stated that you have provided no evidence of Colin's existence, so I have to resort to Occam. Or at least Bayes, which gives the Almighty a 50-50 a priori probability of existing. Not good odds for a hardline atheist.