 | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Remember though, that that kind of evidence is by definition not possible, so it's true that there would be no way to convince you. (...) I was just thinking that, if I were God, how *would* I convince you that I existed? (and how much LEGO I (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Quite so-- thanks :) Actually perhaps the correct thing to say is that by the objectivist viewpoint: "Something can ONLY *BE* true if ...." or more to the point: "If something is NOT ...., then it is NOT true." (...) Oh? Actually, I rather (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) That's the trouble with jumping into the middle of these kinds of things :) I'll see if I can describe it again-- see further down... (...) In this particular part of my post where I bring this up, I'm addressing the issue of fairness as I see (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Fair question. I can speak for no one else but myself, an agnostic who's pretty convinced but not 100% certain there is no god. For myself, I would require objective verifiable evidence. Alleged miracles, things that cannot currently be (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
|
(...) I'm not, but the alliteration was too much to resist. (1) Hence in the example I'm trading the CD AWAY for something I value more. ++Lar 1 - although I do like Sixpence none the Richer... (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Too much! you gotta at least leave who you're talking with... The tree view, of course, has already overflowed and we can't see context clearly... (...) Suggest you leave that as a name rather than a personal pronoun... (...) Ditto. Hope that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Nitpick, for things in general, that's only sufficient to show that they are "likely" to be true. We used to think that indivisible atoms were likely to be true. They gave good predictions and were a good tool. Now we know they're not, but we (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
David Eaton wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> Hey Dave, Dave! et al. You are absolutely correct. And while I find these discussions interesting (when I am able to squeeze in the time), they are a bit unsatisfying, because we usually talking apples and (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
|
(...) Wow. I didn't know you were into the music of Jars of Clay, Lar... or were you just waxing poetic? -John (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
<much indiscriminate snippage> I want to figure out what the heck we're debating. As far as I can tell, we're all over the map. :) In lugnet.off-topic.debate, you: (...) I may be making assumptions myself, here. What *is* your argument? It looks (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
