I've heard this argument before, once from a very nice gentleman on Central Park East with a kiosk out of which he was advocating for atheism. (He spoke of "a little green man on the other side of the moon.")
What I don't get is, how does this argument support atheism, as opposed to agnosticism? I don't know that anyone is using it to "advocate" atheism as he did, but if so I hope you can provide the answer he did not. And if we are down to agnosticism, rather than atheism, being offered in opposition to faith, isn't this a false opposition, since agnosticism is reached through rational faculties?
Let me try to be clearer.
1. Isn't the point of reducing the image of God to an obvious absurdity, as in these examples, to illustrate that the mysteries to which God is posited as the answer are beyond our comprehension?
2. Doesn't the premise that the mysteries to which God is posited as the answer are beyond our comprehension lead to the conclusion that they cannot be addressed by reason?
3. Does not the conclusion that the mysteries to which God is posited as the answer are beyond our comprehension cannot be addressed by reason leave entirely open the possibility that they may be addressed by faith?
In a message dated 11/4/2004 3:48:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>George Carless wrote:
>> You're either left with trying to make life work on your own, or you accept that
>> we are all the creation of the MYSTICAL YELLOW JELLO MONSTER and all that she
>> has to offer.
>I always cited the large green frog that squats in everyone's living
>room. But there's more zip to yours.