Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 3 Dec 2000 04:45:18 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.SPAMCAKEnet
|
Viewed:
|
773 times
|
| |
|
|
"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" wrote:
> John Neal wrote:
>
> > > Certainly not me, since I've never
> > > demanded any proof of God's existence.
> >
> > Then you agree that it is inconsistent to do this?
>
> Why it is not inconsistent for you to assume we should be forced to prove God's
> nonexistence in order to not belive in him?
Come again?
I'm saying it is inconsistent to expect proof of God's existence when that is by
definition not possible. Science and religion are separate realms, so don't hold
one up to the other as a test of its validity.
-John
>
>
> --
> Tom Stangl
> ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> ***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: Don't you get it? (...) Don't you get it, man? Haven't you been listening? That's fine that they are separate realms. It's just fine and dandy. You can use whatever metrics you like for your beliefs. But (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) Why it is not inconsistent for you to assume we should be forced to prove God's nonexistence in order to not belive in him? -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 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
|
|
|
|
