[B. Rabbit]

Hello, I'm a Johnny-come-very-lately to this lengthy debate. Sorry for jumping in here, don't mean to be rude, but this statement is nonsensical. The point is that the gap between our limited understanding of reality and Ultimate Reality is infinite, and thus is an extremely powerful argument for the possibility of God's existence. That there is so much more that we don't know as compared to what we are able to know is in itself an argument for God's existence, for things like facts and knowledge of those facts do not sustain themselves in a vaccuum.

Hello Johnny-come-lately. Let me point out in particular one thing that you said...

The point is that the gap between our limited understanding of reality and Ultimate Reality is infinite, and thus is an extremely powerful argument for the possibility of God's existence.

How does this make my statement nonsensical? And how is your statement sensical? You are echoing what is said too often: If we don't know stuff, there must be a God. Well let's look at dogs, they are far less intelligent than us, thats an even more powerful piece of evidence. Lack of knowledge does not necessitate supreme knowledge.

[music_code]

Because your statement is an illogical negation of the original premise. The original premise made sense - ie, "If we don't know stuff, it is highly likely there is a God."

You are asking us to accept something that collapses under its own weight - ie, "If we don't know stuff, there must be no God." Do you see the problem? Why would anyone conclude that's the end of the story? The awareness of a huge lack of knowledge begs further inquiry, not less.