Re: God
By: echicken to nightcrawler on Sun Jan 10 2010 08:06 pm
> 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? N
> > Well does that mean they should believe it then? Can anyone prove that th
> > 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 G
> because its existence hasn't been disproven, neither am I saying that we sho
> 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 th
> you must therefore accept, wholeheartedly, whatever the alternative is.
>
> I can choose not to believe in the teapot even though somebody has told me i
> 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 ju
> because we have no proof to the contrary, but we're not omniscient and would
> arrogant to say that just because we're not aware of a thing means that it d
> 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 s
> 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
>
In a nutshell, the answer is, you are not going to know till you kick the
bucket.
But if you are smart, you probably should sin as little as possible so you
cover your ass in case.
---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ telnet://vert.synchro.net
|
