...but ALL gods have been defined by man. Any god is an argument from ignorance.
They certainly have but not all gods have been defined as all-powerful and all-knowing etc. plenty (like the norse gods) have been fallable.
The problem you run into when you argue that a god would be free of natural limitations is that there would be no consistency in the realm of the natural.
I prefer to assume that there are no natural limitations on god or man. If I assume that there
are then I go into the investigation of the universe(s) with preconcieved notions of limits and that is not conducive to unbiased research.
You're free to imagine anything or draw up any conjecture. You run into problems when you have to prove what you imagine to be true, specially if you concede this interdimensional guy in a lab coat can manipulate stuff in contravention of the natural every now and then.
Except that I
don't contend that the guy in the lab coat can manipulte stuff in contravention of the natural. I contend that if he exists then he does everything entirely
within the natural.
You're just taking god and putting him in a lab coat a couple of dimensions away.
Yup.
...and maybe one day we'll figure out how Santa Claus delivers all those presents in one night and shake hands with him too.
Now that
would be cool. I wonder how he travels so far in 24 hours?
Sure, if you work from science and then speculate, not the other way around.
And what other way is there? If you want to make advances you can't go in believing that it is impossible to do so. You have to challenge what is "known" and push back the boundaries by finding new ways to do things. Leading scientists do this all the time. I am sure Jules Verne had a damn good idea that we would reach the moon one day even though his contemporaries thought him nothing but a dreamer.
What will you take as evidence? When will you consider something to have been proven to be impossible?
To my knowledge there is no way to prove something is impossible unless that something is logically self defeating.
I see no more evidence for the non-existence of God than I do for the existence of God so while I am almost certain that the "natural" can explain everything, I am not willing to assert that there is no god. Doing so would be an act of faith (in his non-existence) and I don't do faith.
™ Version 4.2
