Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:37:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1394 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> > > Just so we're on the same page here, you're asking Tom to prove that you
> > > can't do something, which in this case is impossible for him to do because
> > > there will always be a case of "yeah, but what if..." It is far more
> > > reasonable for a skeptic to ask you to prove that one *can* visit God
> > > physically, since one such visit, if experimentally repeatable, would prove
> > > it possible.
> >
> > No. He's not asking Tom to prove that something can't be done. He's asking
> > Tom to support his assertion that something can't be done. HUGE difference.
>
> You're quibbling. In that case, Tom might begin, for instance, by
> asserting either that God does not exist, or that God does exist, but he
> exists in a place physically inaccessible to us. In either case we cannot
> physically travel to God.
> Now, I suspect that you, or someone else, will question those two
> hypothetical examples of ways God might be impossible to visit physically,
> so I ask again that someone provide a demonstrable way in which we can visit
> Him.
AAAAARRRGGGGGHHHHHH! (I had to get that off my chest.)
You're missing the point. You cannot catagorically state something as true
OR false when there is no evidence to support or deny it.
Lacking evidence either way, saying "God does not exist" is entirely as
unverifiable as saying "God does exist".
If you're going to accuse the christians of taking God's existance on faith,
then at least either acknowledge that your (the generic you) denial of God's
existence is ALSO on faith, or at least have the consitency to say "God
might exists, but there is no evidence to support it."
Saying "You can't physically visit God" is another unsupportable statement,
and people should either not be making such catagorical statements, or they
should lay off the christians for doing it.
There. I feel better.
James
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Well, lighten up, because both of the above were hypothetical assertions under which one might be able to say conclusively that God cannot be physically visited. I was *not* categorically stating that God does not exist. You're missing the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) I agree with that. But I've never said God doesn't exist. (...) He should have stated that there is no verifiable known way to physically visit God. Tom probably doesn't want to modify his statement, but that's the way I'd put it. Bruce (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) I've already done that, long ago - search for it if you want ;-) I said I had faith that God does NOT exist, and you can't convince me otherwise. (...) OK, I admit: 1 - IF God exists (I have faith he DOESN'T) 2 - someone MIGHT be able to visit (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) You're quibbling. In that case, Tom might begin, for instance, by asserting either that God does not exist, or that God does exist, but he exists in a place physically inaccessible to us. In either case we cannot physically travel to God. Now, (...) (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
|
|
|
|
