Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

So is this about the constitution or the existence (or non) of God?

I presented it about the constitution...various red herrings have lead it off into the existence (or non) of God.

Take your pick...I'm more than willing to argue either question.

S.D.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

I presented it about the constitution...various red herrings have lead it off into the existence (or non) of God.

Take your pick...I'm more than willing to argue either question.

S.D.

Not interested in the Constitution - heck it can always be amended - the question of God is eternal.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Not interested in the Constitution - heck it can always be amended -

NOT without the appropriate vote.

...the question of God is eternal.

Which, clearly, has been debated for CENTURIES (i.e. precisely because the existence of God 'His' so-called word prescribing 'His' religious tenants/facts/etc. have not been proven)!

S.D.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

NOT without the appropriate vote.



Which, clearly, has been debated for CENTURIES (i.e. not proven)!

S.D.

And I'm fine with the notion that there are things that just "unknowable" even our own experience of the world cannot be "proven" to be objective truth (I clearly break with Kant on that one). Since neither position can be proven, from a pragmatic sense I find the argument rather pointless.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

And I'm fine with the notion that there are things that just "unknowable" even our own experience of the world cannot be "proven" to be objective truth (I clearly break with Kant on that one). Since neither position can be proven, from a pragmatic sense I find the argument rather pointless.

This couldn't be any further from the truth.

Science and scientific theory (e.g. evolution) have already DISPROVEN many religous stipulations, as argued within my various responses.

It is religion and religious belief that is the negative, not non-religion and its susbsequent belief (or absent thereof).

S.D.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

This couldn't be any further from the truth.

Science and scientific theory (e.g. evolution) have already DISPROVEN many religous stipulations, as argued within my various responses.

It is religion and religious belief that is the negative, not non-religion and its susbsequent belief (or absent thereof).

S.D.

Science may have proven that biblical metaphor is just that - metaphor. But I've seen not "scientific" proof of the existence or non-existence of God - and for this point lets define God as Omniscient and Omnipresent (we'll skip Benevolence for now and the problem of evil).

On the other hand many people have claimed to have "numinous" experiences, experiences of the presence of God - so if we accept our senses as legit, then they have a good a claim as those of us who have never had a personal experience of God. (I think scientific knowledge is still based on "observable" repeatable experiments).

If we only accept things as true that we have verified ourselves, we'll then I'm sorry there are a lot of things I'll have to no longer believe, like the existence of Lapland.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Science may have proven that biblical metaphor is just that - metaphor.

Emphatically declaring that the earth is the center of the universe and created in 6 days, much less being less than 10-15k years old is hardly a metaphor...among other ridiculous assertions.

But I've seen not "scientific" proof of the existence or non-existence of God - and for this point lets define God as Omniscient and Omnipresent (we'll skip Benevolence for now and the problem of evil).

Omniscience negates free will, and omnipresence is patently ridiculous...because of He could be in all places at once, He'd be able to stop all the evil at once. Which goes into the weakness (and your avoidance of) omnibenevolence and the problem of evil.

On the other hand many people have claimed to have "numinous" experiences, experiences of the presence of God -

Many schizophrenics...among other mentally disturbed, claim the same thing (need I give the Jim Jones example again?).

...so if we accept our senses as legit, then they have a good a claim as those of us who have never had a personal experience of God. (I think scientific knowledge is still based on "observable" repeatable experiments).

Tell that to the many children who died a horrible death suffering in pain because their parents forced their religious beliefs upon them denying them conventional medicine for curable ailements; because according to them, man's medicine is inherently evil (e.g. The Followers of Christ Church, Oregon).

If we only accept things as true that we have verified ourselves, we'll then I'm sorry there are a lot of things I'll have to no longer believe, like the existence of Lapland.

Mockering is a fallacy...

S.D.