- Mar 19, 2001
- PA USA
- Basic Beliefs
They have no access to data? They observe food appearing but have already concluded that there is nothing outside their bowl and don't have the sense to question their previous conclusion that there isn't anything outside their bowl? An observation is not data? Dumb!How is that any more dumb than assuming our "physical laws" are laws, or that the universe has "always existed"? They have no access to any data that could possibly confirm the existence of anything outside the bowl; they'd think you were a complete blibbering idiot for suggesting there were living beings outside the bowl. Why is it necessary to posit magnificent but completely invisible alien beings who like to give us food, when everyone knows that the First Law of Food Materialization consistently explains the phenomenon they see better (and in much more sciencey-sounding language) than any mysticism could possibly hope to do? You might as well propose that the food comes from a pink fluffy invisible unicorn pooping into the bowl.
So you want me to accept that Santa is real because a five year old's experiences tell him that Santa is real even though you know better? Really?
So this is apologia 2001.762.1, argument for Santa from a fishbowl. Got it. Jack and Rexella can make a show.