I don’t know any atheist who claims that symbols or trees don’t exist. If your thought experiment is to be salvaged it needs to go back to the drawing board.
A Theist can choose any object (it doesn’t have to be a tree) as a symbol of God. This is idolatry, but it’s the case-in-point. The Theist claims the Tree does exist, while the Atheist claims it does not. The Theist can describe to the Atheist, the Tree, but the Atheist will strike down any description. The “testimony” is not good enough. The Atheist needs “proof”. So the Theist shows the Atheist a picture of the Tree. The Atheist denies that the photograph is proof. So the Theist then brings the Atheist to the location of the Tree. Finally, the Atheist will say, “but that’s not God”.
How does the Atheist know, or not, whether the Tree is God?
This is simple. This is High School level, so I know this though-experiment will be popular around here…
[/quote]
[/quote]
F: I don’t know any atheist who claims that symbols or trees don’t exist. If your thought experiment is to be salvaged it needs to go back to the drawing board.
[/quote]
K: The fact is this is a terrible thought experiment…this pretend experiment doesn’t
explore the basic premise of god… which is his being ‘‘ineffable’’
ineffable: too great to extreme to be expressed or described in words…
pood already admitted in the other thread, that God is a “book of fiction”, at least readily admitting to her ideal of God.
And that’s the thing, not only are Atheists unable to differentiate God from an object, any object, but also admit their contempt and lowly imagery of the idea-itself.
Because Atheists lack self-reflection, and empathy, they are unable to have any worthwhile debate with Theism, based on this flawed premise.
If anybody is brave enough to step forward, to disprove it is as I explain, be my guest, anytime.