Well, in response to your original question, I said, “Something outside the observable universe.”
You then asked: What about entities in this universe?
Let me ask you then: Are things that are “outside the observable universe” necessarily outside this universe? Can’t they be both "outside the observable universe and inside this universe?
If non-duality actually is the reality…isn’t that inside this universe, but outside the observable universe?
If the entire of the universe is merely an illusion…isn’t that inside this universe, but outside the observable universe?
Same with the kinds of physics that may apply inside black holes; alternate dimensions; and for that matter, the notion of a megaverse.
Not trying to be obtuse here, Czarcasm…but your initial question dealt with, “Are there any other entities for which there is no evidence, other than gods, that you keep an open mind about?”
Just trying to find out at what point you would say, “No, that entity is too silly and/or illogical to even bother considering until you give me good reason to do so.”
We’ve already established that. It’s the point at which an atheist shows that he’s just picking and choosing silly things to offer the benefit of the doubt to. Once an atheist uses something as an example, then he won’t bother considering it.
But you haven’t really “considered” them though, have you? You’ve just offered up a random guess as an opinion, “that one is plausible”, “that one is ridiculous” without any explanation. You’re supposed to provide some kind of analysis as to the differences and similarities between the ideas that make you weigh their probabilites differently. Something that starts with; “invisible cars are ridiculous, whereas a god is plausible, and here’s why:”
Okay, the question as once revised is: “Just trying to find out at what point you would say, "No, that entity is too silly and/or illogical to even bother considering until you give me good reason to do so.”
Which has been further revised to: “What about invisible all-powerful entities that can do anything?”
As I said about the invisible cars; flying spaghetti monsters; and cpa’s working on one of the moons of Saturn….I am willing to “consider” almost anything anyone wants to propose…in the spirit of fun and games—including “invisible all-powerful entities that can do anything.”
I am, for instance, willing to consider the cartoon god of the Bible…and even discuss it for a bit (probably a good deal longer than I would discuss invisible cars; flying spaghetti monsters; and cpa’s working on one of the moons of Saturn—although I think the notion of a god like the cartoon god of the Bible is every bit as ridiculous as those other things.
I just would discuss it for a bit longer because there is more material to work with and have fun with.
Gustav…I can “consider” these things…and determine that they are ridiculous if I choose.
Why are you limiting what I can and cannot do?
And why are you saying that I am doing it “without any explanation.” I HAVE given an explanation for why I consider them ridiculous…a couple of times now.
Protip: ‘Because an atheist is using them to show how bankrupt my stance is and how it lacks any internal consistency and so I won’t respond’, is not, in fact, explaining the difference.
I don’t have much time, but if I may add something.
It seems that because atheists find the notion of an invisible god silly, they think that by dialing up the silliness of that god, that the theist has to defend that proposition as equally plausible. This is, well, silly.
If one wants to have a serious discussion about this he should assume that this god is as stripped down a god as possible. No flowing robes, no unicycle, no pinkness, no unicornness, no dragonness, no spaghettiness, etc., etc, etc… By adding those attributes your asking someone to defend what they do not propose or believe.
Finish the following sentence: “The existence of invisible pink unicorns is so silly that they should only be “considered” by way of going along with a joke, whereas the existence of an all-powerful sentient being that created the universe is plausible enough that dismissing it off-hand is the height of arrogance, and here’s why:”
The god in question is invisible, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-loving, created the universe, leaves no tangible evidence of his existence, and might just live outside of the universe(wherever that might be). I really can’t see how it is possible to dial up the silliness any more.
I do not like your wording…so I will reword it to conform more closely to what I actually have consistently said on this issue:
I do not have evidence that pink unicorns exist so I cannot categorically say they do exist…or that they do not. I can consider the evidence as to their existence and make a meaningful guess about that matter. The only time I have ever heard about pink unicorns (flying spaghetti monsters, cpa’s working on Saturn, invisible cars) are when I, or other agnostics, are debating with atheists who “believe” that gods do not exist. So I am assuming they are using pink unicorns and the others as stand-ins for what they “believe” to be non-existent…and that they invented them only for that purpose. The existence or non-existence of pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, cpa’s working on Saturn, invisible cars have nothing to do with the question with which I am working—namely, what is the true nature of the Reality of existence…and what can I rule in or out as possible ingredients.
Based on all that, I therefore make a guess that they do not exist.
As to whether or not gods exist…I am convinced that it is “plausible” enough to at least be considered a possibility…and I do not see a reason to make a guess that they do not exist.
The decision to make a guess on the question “are there gods or are there no gods” I leave to atheists and theists…who evaluate what they consider to be evidence for and against the existence of gods. The theists, oddly enough, see the evidence as either conclusive that gods exists…or as much more likely they exist than that they do not exist. The atheists, even more oddly, see the evidence as either conclusive that gods do not exist…or that it is much more likely they do not than that they do.
I think they are both full of soup.
I see hardly any evidence at all in either direction…and I cannot make a meaningful guess as to whether or not gods exist. I certainly can say that I see no reason to assume that it is impossible for gods to exist
This is different from consideration of the matter of pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, cpa’s working on Saturn, invisible cars…none of which go to the question with which I am dealing…and all of which show up only when atheists are debating agnostics…which leads me to suspect they are merely made-up things invented to bolster atheistic arguments.
Now, Gustav…I have considered your proposition…given my reasons for answering the way I do.
By the way…I am having an endoscopy tomorrow and have started the preliminary preparations (strong, quick acting laxatives and purges) and may not be able to be at the keyboard for long periods of time. I will get back to every post at some point (hopefully immediately) for sure.