If your imaginary friend is real he also has the ability to destroy us all. The difference is, he has the ability to be cruel to the n'th degree while expecting us not to be, yet bow down and cower in fear of his whim's.
Invitation: To all and any one of the religious persuasion, especially the young earth believers. Please define true, or proof to your satisfaction.
Pete - I have no problem with the words "true" or "unture" - when they are used correctly. To say "two plus two equals five" is to state something that is untrue. But there is a difference between "untrue" and "unproven". In your view, there is no god. Howver, you cannot offer any conclusive proof that there is no god. Therefore when someone says "there is a god" is not unture - it is merely unproven. To go back to my last point - given that science cannot expalin how the universe came into existance, can you not accept that there may be a tiny, incredibly remote possibility, that god did it ? As Sherlock Holms said "once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, has to be the answer". But you discount the existence of god without offering any conclusive proof for that opinion...
No fin, if you were a god you wouldn't be sitting there freezing your nuts. If there was a god he would probably have other more pressing concerns.
Conclusive proof, eh? There is an infinite number of absurd assertions that can be made (the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the orbiting chocolate teapot, Ganesh the elephant god, etc etc ad nauseam) which it is logically impossible to "conclusively disprove". As Chris Hitchens famously said, assertions which are postulated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Each religion puts forward its own batch of absurd, evidence-free, incompatible assertions, so there are thousands of these nonsensical ideas out there in the culture. So is it your position that not one of them can reasonably be called untrue unless it is "conclusively disproved"? There are also masses of myths, legends, stories, and works of fiction in the culture - can those too not be called untrue unless they are conclusively disproved? Do you think Sherlock Holmes really existed, or was a fictional creation? Why do you think that? You seem to have led yourself down a blind alley in which myth has the same truth-value as reality. 2+2=4 is true, obviously enough, but it is in the nature of logic that only tautologies can be conclusively proved to be true. Sadly, tautologies are not very useful so in the real world we need inductive facts, not logical tautologies.
