From: Dana Hedberg (dah@signalinteractive.com)
Date: Fri Jan 21 2000 - 11:25:22 MST
Clint O'Dell wrote:
>
> Edd111@aol.com wrote:
> >>Clint, what you espouse or may not be true. You cannot
> prove it, and neither can I!<<
>
> So we aren't made of atoms? That is what I said. QueenMUSE
> made that comment about 'all atheists' so I'm sure that is
> where the confusion comes in. My being atheist has nothing
> to do if we are made of atoms or not. But since you do bring
> it up, speaking of "God" I don't have to prove non-existing
> entities don't exist. How does one know a 1 eyed 1 horned
> flying purple people eater doesn't exist?
The answer is: you don't know. Of course you can not "prove" something's
non-existence, but your statement above is a priori. You can not say for
sure that there is a God (Supreme Being, etc.), and you can't say for
sure that there is not. Agnosticism seems the logical choice in this
situation.
>
> Evidence of existence lies on a person making the claim. One
> cannot rationally believe everything their imagination or
> friend's imagination conceives of.
>
Agreed. But why are you so certain there is no Supreme Being responsible
for our creation?
> The Christian god is easily disproved by definition. Given
> no definition of god (well, a very wide one) it is absurd
> beyond reason.
>
There are problems with all religions in that they try to make something
that is by definition unknowable, knowable. Does this mean that they are
incorrect, or are perfect in their wordsmithing? Not at all. BUT, it
also doesn't mean they are. Again, "I don't know. Could be, or might
not." seems the more rational choice among the three possibilities.
-dana
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:26:21 MST