Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:02:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1295 times
|
| |
|
|
Aaargh! I typed lengthy responses to two respective posts by you and by
David, and both times my workplace suffered a blink in power, rebooting my
computer. Thus we are all denied the glory of my wisdom, and thus we must
all take on faith that I have successfully refuted your arguments and David's.
Having vented that, I proceed...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> If you have not actually verified for yourself that Brazil exists, you take
> it on faith (or don't, I suppose...). It doesn't matter how large or small
> the body of evidence is, you are still CHOOSING to accept or not accept it.
> Any and all evidence that you do not directly observe is testimonial in
> nature. The difference in accepting Brazil on faith and accepting God on
> faith is a matter of degree, not of kind. (which is, I think, where this
> particular branch started)
I assert that it is a difference in *kind*, because the existence of God
cannot be experimentally verified, while the existence of Brazil can be (as
Bruce spells out in his post.)
Further, I suggest that the essential process of perception is fundamental
to our existence, and as such it occurs at a level far below any choice to
believe or deny. That is, even if I absolutely believe that fire is cool
and comforting, it will burn my flesh, given enough time (firewalkers, for
any who might suggest them as a refutation, are readily explained through
conventional scientific means). My belief or disbelief in the existence of
fire makes no difference. Even if someone suggests "well, if you don't
believe in fire, then in *your* reality you weren't burned by fire but by
something else," the fact remains that such a distinction is equivocal and
linguistic, rather than actual.
By the way... If you (in general) assert that faith in God is of the same
"kind" as faith in our senses, then you're asserting that faith in God is
subordinate to faith in one's senses. That is, since our perception is not
verifiable, our perception of our own faith is likewise not verifiable.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Darn. And I thought I was winning. Oh well. :) (...) Ah, but God's existence can be verified by experiment. The only problem is that the method of experimentation is too vague to be sure that you're doing it 'right'. Were I Joe the Christian (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) But have you, personally, conducted these various experiments to prove the existance of Brazil, or are you accepting the testimonial evidence of those that have? If you have not actually verified for yourself that Brazil exists, you take it on (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
