Skepticus wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <IPuac.142719$1p.1843462@attbi_s54>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
... pretends anybody ... is arguing the theist position.
Only those like Snipper and Libertarius who make thist type arguments
for the existence of gods.
Example:
---
http://tinylink.com/?LNRPgHsHtI
From: Sniper (sniper@septicsucks.com)
Subject: Re: Stupid Skeptic Tricks
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism.satire
Date: 2004-03-08 21:06:07 PST
"X exists" is a claim. "X does not exist" is a claim.
"X might exist", unless it is known that it does not,
is a fair statement, _unless_ demonstrated otherwise.
---
Clear, logical and true.
Until X is proven not to exist, X cannot be known not to exist, and as
long as X cannot be known not to exist, one must allow that X might
exist.
I personally think that there is little chance that any god can exist,
but as a loyal agnostic, I must reject any statement that it is
impossible without it has been proved impossible.
===>pan·the·ism
: a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
And "the forces and laws of the universe" do exist! -- L.
Therefore God exists? Not a valid inference.
===>It is NOT an "inference". It is a DEFINITION.
"GOD" defined as the UNIVERSE, NATURE and its
forces and laws, DO EXIST.
:"God" defined as ANYTHING objectively observable
would exist BY DEFINITION.
Equating God with the forces and laws of the universe is the fallacy of
equivocal deification.
===>What on earth are you talking about?
See www.m-w.com
===See WHAT?
Spinoza, Einstein, many other Pantheists used that definition
of "GOD". It is in no sense an "equivocation", as you are \
trying to label it.
.
