Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:56:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1617 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> 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".
I agree with that. But I've never said God doesn't 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.
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
