XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies
In message
Stan Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 09:41:02 -0700, John wrote:
>>
>> "Lewis" wrote in message
>> news:slrnloqgbm.dp.g.kreme@amelia.local...
>> > Utter crap. "God does not exist" is a factual statement that most
>> > people would not accept; it's still a fact.
>> >
>> But that is also utter crap, because I can state as a fact that "God does
>> exist" just as easily as you can, and it's still a fact
> You've both allowed your passions to lead you away from common sense.
> The existence or nonexistence of a god or gods cannot be proved. It's
> true that one of "there is a god" or "there is not a god" must be a
> fact, but we are not able to decide which one, in a verifiable way.
Of course we are. There is no god is a fact because the contrary to that
cannot be proven. You have to prove something is, you cannot insist
that someone prove something isn't, that is logic 101, first day.
There are no invisible pink unicorns is a fact right up to the point
that there is a proof of invisible pink unicorns.
Or, a real example.
There are no black swans was a statement of fact for a very long time
until black swans were discovered and proved to exist. Before that
discovery, "I believe in black swans" was just as ridiculous statement
as "I believe the moon is made of cheese."
> I happen to believe that a god does not exist, since there is not the
> slightest shred of evidence that one does.
I don't believe that because it has nothing to do with belief. There is
no god is a statement of fact and my belief does not enter into it at
all; neither does anyone else's. Unless there is *proof* the god exist,
then the god does not exist.
The instant there is proof of god I will accept the *fact* there is a
god, just like the fact there are back swans. I still will bot *believe*
it. I don't believe in black swans, elm trees, or spring, either.
> There _is_, of course, abundant evidence all around us that an
> all-powerful and all- benevolent god does not exist, so the Christians
> are certainly wrong. But it's still not logically impossible that
> some sort of divine being exists, one that for reasons of its own it
> is hiding itself very effectively. But "not logically impossible" does
> not mean "true".
It's possible the planets are carried on their orbits with bare-breasted
amazon women riding giant bumble bees. Unless you prove it exist, it
does not. Possible is as irrelevant as believe. Either it is a fact, or
it is not a fact. The only way that "possible" has any meaning at all,
and it's not much, is if the possible thing seems to fit in with the
facts we know. Bare-breasted amazons may exist, but giant bumble bees
almost certainly do not, nor would they be capable of pushing a planet
no matter how many there were.
Here's another real example for you. Consider that in 1500 someone had
said, "Disease is caused by invisible demon-like creatures that enter
your body and wage war against it. Your body summons up a host of
defenders to drive off the illness and the heat of their battle is why
you get a fever."
Now, you might dismiss this and semi-lunatic babbling, and you would
have been right to do so in 1500. As it turns out, that's not a bad
explanation of what happens when you get sick. Not demons, of course,
but the viruses and bacteria may as well be. But that explanation was
not *a fact* in 1500 because there were no facts to back it up. Those
facts came much much later.
--
Evil is a little man afraid for his job.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
