Re: God
By: nightcrawler to echicken on Sun Jan 10 2010 18:10:01
> See my Russel's teapot post. Can anyone prove the teapot DOESN'T exist? No?
> Well does that mean they should believe it then? Can anyone prove that the
> leprachaun living up my butt-hole DOESN'T exist? No? Better assume he
> does then.
See, this isn't what I'm saying. I'm not saying that we should believe in God
because its existence hasn't been disproven, neither am I saying that we should
refuse to believe in God because its existence hasn't been proven. All I am
saying is that lack of proof does not equal disproof. This does not mean that
you must therefore accept, wholeheartedly, whatever the alternative is.
I can choose not to believe in the teapot even though somebody has told me it's
out there in orbit, but I can't say that lack of proof of its existence is
proof of its nonexistence. We don't have to accept ridiculous assertions just
because we have no proof to the contrary, but we're not omniscient and would be
arrogant to say that just because we're not aware of a thing means that it does
not exist.
Anyway, I've been given absolutely no proof that God exists, and so I don't
believe in him - but I've also been given no absolute proof that he doesn't
exist, so I accept that there's a tiny possibility that he's out there. I see
nothing wrong with that.
> But I do agree, the convo can't really go much further.
I've seen this one hash out a few times. It usually either ends within the
first couple of rounds or goes around the same track over and over again.
echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230
---
■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com
|
