Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:47:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1411 times
|
| |
|
|
Wow, this thread is fast becoming hard to track! :)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> > 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.
Maybe you changed the point, Dave, but just to backtrack:
James:
> Why, out of curiosity, does Brazil pass this test, and God fail it? At a
> fundamental, and conceptual level, there is no difference, unless you go and
> perform the experiment (visit Brazil) yourself.
Tom:
> You can visit Brazil (I have a co-worker living there right now, so I trust it
> exists). And I've seen plenty of pictures.
>
> You can't visit God physically. And I have YET to see a picture of him.
James:
> That's an assumption. Why can't you visit God physically?
Tom:
> Prove you can. Supposedly you only see God when you die - that's not a
> physical visit.
>
> Maybe you want to say you can visit him METAphysically, but don't try to
> convince me that you can visit him physically.
DaveE:
> No no, you changed it around. You said "You can't visit God physically".
> Back that up. With replicatable evidence. James wasn't suggesting that you
> CAN, he was asking why he should believe you that you CAN'T.
Basically, the point was, what makes proving Brazil different from proving
God? Tom's answer was that God is not subject to physical evidence, whereas
Brazil is. And here, two clarifications must be made:
1. You can't assert that God is not subject to physical evidence (as you
were quick to point out), without assuming something else about God and/or
physical evidence which was not stated. So either Tom isn't allowed to
logically make that conclusion, or he should have backed it up with his
assumptions about God, with which we may disagree ANYWAY.
2. The difference between physical evidence and metaphysical evidence is
trivially insignificant when dealing with it on a theoretical level. The
only thing that matters is the fact that you have more faith in one method
over the other-- preference of method, the concept of which we've started to
delve into elsewhere.
DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
