Your story of the human constructed solar system is enlightening about the existence of God, until one asks who made God. Christian theology's answer is that God is so omnipotent that he needs no creator and the atheist's counter is that any being so powerful cannot be so invisible. Agnostics are on firmer grounds since they reason that God is merely a concept within man's imagination, thus any proof of God's existence is by defintion illusionary, because the conceptual characteristics of God exceeds to man's ability to imagine them. When Christians claim God made man in his own image, it follows that man is a failed God, or God is the ideal of man.
Henry
Daniel wrote:
> Caroll worte: "The main problem I have with Dawkins's enjoyable work is that
> bothering to try to *prove* atheism* tends to undermine a privilege many of
> us born in the 20th century have - that (to turn a phase of Milton's inside
> out) of being atheists by birthright more than merit. That is, all
> acceptable arguments begin with materialism as their premise, and any
> attempt to prove atheism or materialism is redundant or incoherent."
>
> Caroll, if I understand you correctly, it seems to me you haven't turned
> Milton inside out at all. But, I must not understand you. Do you mean that
> the materialist premise is in some way true on a level that is unique, i.e.
> not requiring proof?
>
> Quincy