Once upon a
time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the
clearing were growing many beautiful flowers and fruits.
One
explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot."
The other
disagrees. "There is no gardener," says him.
So they
pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever
seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener."
So they set
up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with
bloodhounds. But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has
received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible
climber. The bloodhounds never gave a cry.
Yet still
the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible,
intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no
scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look
after the garden which he loves."
At last the
Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion?
Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally
elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no
gardener at all?"
-----
From reading this, it seems that the Believer is a fool to
believe in an invisible gardener. But then, how does the garden
remain tended? (not really meaning a garden, i don't need/want a
botany lesson =P ) Just to show what both sides are
seeing.
well, by reason someone would have tended the garden, thing is,
existence of supreme being demand more rigorous examination than a
gardener would, and we also neglect what form does this 'existence'
come in...in mind, a really awesome powerful being etc
and to what extent existence of supreme being lead to? do we
start believing it in form of christianity, Islam, Judaism or
everyone has a chance to enter Nirvana like Buddha?
your analogy still cannot cover this assumption we all could
make about god or whatever god is
