One last observation regarding the following comment:
“‘What reason do we have to suppose that God might not exist?’ Well, his being invisible, inaudible, intangible, nonaromatic, flavorless, and undetectable by any known instrument is a pretty good start.”
The problem with this statement is its sloppy generalization. There have been plenty of observations of God recorded throughout history. Now, it’s fair to say that, given the contradictions in those observations, that some of them are unreliable. What it is not fair to suggest though is that the absence of a scientifically-measurable God is somehow a crushing blow against the notion of God’s existence.
The same argument might be used to squash the concept of spontaneous/chance-based organization of life, etc. Most of all though, it stems from a kind of organized subjectivity. It suggests that because certain individuals, groups, etc. don’t encounter God that they can rightfully claim that He doesn’t exist.
Well, I’ve never been to Wales, but I have it on good authority that it’s there.
