An argument for God

[Beskar]

Theology is not fantasy - whether you believe it or not is not the point, it's a branch of philosophy and either you approach it as such or you don't engage the argument. "Oh, they're just entertaining stories" is a dismissal, not engagement.

Theology in many ways is the study of cult fantasy which people believe is real, which is why it is called Theology and not Philosophy.

---

As for your proposal, I counter with this "Jesus cannot bend/break the natural order to walk on water" with the argument that any actions influenced on the world have an explanation to why they occur, even if you do not understand it at the time (thus appearance of it occurring). I also don't deny the possibility of the feat as there have been enough magicians able to perform it on the river thames.


Such feats do not require supernatural intervention which you are proposing. So especially when you apply the KISS principle, it is something far simpler than external disruption of time and space. So it is something natural which is observable and can be explained which doesn't require things to be imagined which have zero evidence of existence.

I think that is a pretty solid logical argument against your proposal and a dismissal of your dismissal.

From your reply, it isn't a matter of me not having understood the OP, your objection more jerk-knee response as you dislike the notion of being incorrect in your beliefs.