Subject:
|
The god debate again... sigh (Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:17:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
856 times
|
| |
|
|
Plowed ground alert.
Let's see if I can manage to just say ONE post on this and then let it go.
or if anyone else can either... hahaha... (1)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> > > Interestingly enough, we have an unintentional answer to the "God" debate
> > > straight from Big Lar himself:
> > >
> > > http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=24629
That's a bit of a stretch, Bill.
> > Heh. For good or ill, that's kind of a restating of the long-lived
> > Ontological Argument for God's Existence.
>
> Yet, as far as I understand it, the Ontological Argument is more about the
> nature of existence not whether the thing exists in the first place. As
> such, the existence of the thing is already a foregone conclusion. As my
> reference to Lar's observation above indicates: someone who has not
> witnessed a thing cannot refute someone who has.
Stipulating that there is a connection for the sake of argument (there isn't):
Well, since no one *has* witnessed gods, god or God, in an objective,
verifiable way, we're safe there. If your christian god is fundamentally
unknowable, you have no way of knowing if your Born Again Moment(tm) was the
the One True holy spirit or just DTs from last nights unholy spirits. We
covered this last time, remember? What's changed since then? Why bring it up
again?
> Those who have not found God have not sought him in
> the right place.
Or they aren't looking.
I tend to label myself an atheist, because explaining that I'm agnostic to
the extent of allowing for the existence of an unknowable spirit who has no
effect on the universe whatever (no other kind is supported by the evidence)
is too much gafla to inflict on your random minister (although I'm happy to
tell Jehovah's Witnesses all about it, it messes with their world view).
We covered this last time, remember? Why bring it up again?
1 - note, dear reader... I snipped stuff. Deal. You're competent, *you*
figure out what I snipped. Consider yourself lucky that I told you this time
because I might not, next time. It's not malicious, I'm not out to deny that
people said more than they quoted, and I'll gladly concede to a
reamplification if I snipped too heavily.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
231 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
