Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:18:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1424 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
>
> > > 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.
>
> 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 point.You're right, you're just dumping the burden of proof on me(1). It was Tom that was catagorically stating unsupportable things. You suggested he could use other, equally unsupportable things to support his position, and then turned it around and said that it was up to me to provide a refutation rather than up to Tom to provide a substatiation. Why are you moving the burden of proof away from the person making unsubstantiated claims?
So, did you snip my arguments to pick a nit because you agree with them,
because you can't refute them, or because you're ignoring them?
James
1: Or rather on "somone", before that nit gets picked.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Because the necessary level of proof for your claim is considerably smaller than the necessary proof for Tom's claim and mine. Again, if you can provide even one example of a way to visit God physically, you'll singlehandedly eliminate any and (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
