XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 19:23:18 +0000 (UTC), Lewis   
    wrote:   
      
   >In message <3pa0p9d93g04c324h90ehdujlg2ngb849m@4ax.com>   
   >  Steve Hayes  wrote:   
   >> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 04:51:33 +0000 (UTC), Lewis   
   >>  wrote:   
   >   
   >>>In message <91luo91pg8ecuhecms1ad2s45n386gchg2@4ax.com>   
   >>>  Paul S  Person  wrote:   
   >>>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 20:16:44 +0200, Taemon  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>>On 1-6-2014 18:58, Paul S. Person wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 13:38:56 +0200, Taemon  wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 27-5-2014 18:57, Paul S. Person wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 May 2014 23:08:40 +0200, Taemon  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Hey,   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>I'm really busy for a couple of days and won't have the headspace to   
   >>>>>have this discussion properly. I'll be back later. Still enjoying it :-)   
   >>>   
   >>>> No problem, but you might want to have it with Lewis, who appears to   
   >>>> believe that you can't possible adopt the position you have adopted   
   >>>> because no one can be allowed to do so. That's right, I said   
   >>>> "allowed", because that, I think, best summarizes his attitude.   
   >>>   
   >>>People are not allowed to state that their beliefs, fantasies, and   
   >>>opinions are facts when they are not. that I would agree with.   
   >   
   >> Well you'd have to, wouldn't you, since you described your own belief that   
   God   
   >> does not exist as a "fact". It is, too, if it is what you in fact believe.   
   >   
   >No, I never said I believe god does not exist. You are mangling words.   
   >   
   >There is no evidence of god (any god), therefore there is no god. That   
   >is a statement of FACT, not belief, not opinion, not faith, not   
   >delusion, not fantasy.   
      
   I never said that you said that you believe that god does not exist. I said   
   that you believe that god does not exist.   
      
   >IF there is evidence that a god exist then, and only then (just like   
   >the black swans) "there is a god" becomes a fact.   
      
   As the old truism goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.   
      
   >> What is a "fact" depends very much on where you are and the point of view   
   from   
   >> which you see things.   
   >   
   >No. Facts are absolute and in no way relative. They are immune to points   
   >of view and how you see things, that is what makes them facts. Facts are   
   >the things that do not change when you stop believing in them.   
      
   That's a fine statement of dogmatic theology. Just suvbstitute "gods" for   
   "facts" in that paragraph and you'll see what I mean.   
      
   >> I can say that it is a fact that the sun rose this morning, but someone   
   might   
   >> argue that that is not a fact, since I saw it from the earth, and the earth   
   is   
   >> rotating in such a way that the sun happened to become visible to me.   
   >   
   >The word 'rise' is relative, so the event described is relative. As a   
   >*relative* description of an event, "The sun rose this morning" is a   
   >fact.   
      
   Hmm, a couple of paragraphs earlier you were saying that facts are absolute,   
   but now you're saying that they can be relative. *I* don't mind, because that   
   was the point I was trying to make, but ...   
      
   >[fantasy mumbo-jumbo deleted]   
      
   Oh dear!   
      
   It seems that one of us is in the wrong newsgroup.   
      
      
   --   
   Steve Hayes   
   Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm   
        http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw   
        http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)