| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Wen-King Su" |
| Date: |
01 Aug 2003 11:22:51 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bgc7ol$hpd@neptune.myri-local.com...
:
;
:> ... When knowledge of god is not obtainable ...
;
:Knowledge of what is not obtainable?
That which someone call god, of course. Isn't it obvious?
;What can it possibly be,
It can quite possiblity be something we don't know anything about, of course.
;and how do you
;know it exists if knowledge of it cannot be demonstrated?
Who said we know it exists?
.
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Aug 2003 06:27:57 AM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bgfear$bjv@neptune.myri-local.com...
Who said we know it exists?
You insist that something you call 'Gawd', though invisible, may in reality
exist anyway. What is that precisely? If you can't explain it, then it is
just meaningless metaphysical speculation with no basis in fact,
knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Aug 2003 09:16:06 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bgfear$bjv@neptune.myri-local.com...
:
;> Who said we know it exists?
:
;You insist that something you call 'Gawd', though invisible, may in reality
:exist anyway.
When did I say it is invisible?
;What is that precisely?
That which someone call god of course.
;If you can't explain it, then it is
;just meaningless metaphysical speculation with no basis in fact,
:knucklehead.
What is? God or that it may in reality exist? That it may in reality
exist has been very well explained, and is therefore not a meanless
metaphysical speculation with no basis in fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Aug 2003 10:01:55 AM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bggh36$js8@neptune.myri-local.com...
When did I say it is invisible?
Is it visible? Demonstrate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jiva" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Aug 2003 04:33:44 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<DnQWa.33982$Vt6.13341@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bggh36$js8@neptune.myri-local.com...
When did I say it is invisible?
Is it visible? Demonstrate.
You wouldn't be able to *easily* show an atom or recreate the Big Bang
under
controlled conditions, so why would a "demonstration" of God be so
easy? Show me neutrinos first, and I'll show you God. Remember not to
rely on testimony to prove your point unless you'd accept testimony as
evidence for my position that belief in the existence of God is
warranted. Also don't inform me of any complicated procedures, such as
getting a degree in physics and working with particle accelerators,
unless you're also willing to undergo long, difficult and complicated
procedures to test MY theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Aug 2003 05:17:54 PM |
|
|
"jiva" <conditionedsoul2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29857638.0308021333.4f8d2ab5@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<DnQWa.33982$Vt6.13341@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bggh36$js8@neptune.myri-local.com...
When did I say it is invisible?
Is it visible? Demonstrate.
You wouldn't be able to *easily* show an atom or recreate the Big Bang
under
controlled conditions ...
Control is not always possible (supernovae for example), so either
prediction and control, or simply prediction of real events alone is
sufficient to demonstrate knowledge (Latin word : science) of the nature of
things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jiva" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
05 Aug 2003 04:08:37 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<mMWWa.35579$It4.21909@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"jiva" <conditionedsoul2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29857638.0308021333.4f8d2ab5@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<DnQWa.33982$Vt6.13341@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bggh36$js8@neptune.myri-local.com...
When did I say it is invisible?
Is it visible? Demonstrate.
You wouldn't be able to *easily* show an atom or recreate the Big Bang
under
controlled conditions ...
Control is not always possible (supernovae for example), so either
prediction and control, or simply prediction of real events alone is
sufficient to demonstrate knowledge (Latin word : science) of the nature of
things.
Prediction is one thing; verification is another. Actually, I'd even
say that prediction is meaningless without
verification/experimentation. You seem to believe that valid claims
should be demonstratable, yet you seem to have an interesting
understanding of what "demonstration" means. There is "demonstration"
and there is "inference".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Aug 2003 08:01:48 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-8989C0.18320502082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <mMWWa.35579$It4.21909@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Control is not always possible (supernovae for example), so either
prediction and control, or simply prediction of real events alone is
sufficient to demonstrate knowledge (Latin word : science) of the nature
of
things.
Predict which part of today's "knowledge" will be the first to
become tomorrow's "mistaken belief", in the way that Newton's
gravitation did.
What's wrong with Newton, knucklehead? Have the laws of motion been repealed
by your church?
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Aug 2003 11:36:35 PM |
|
|
In article <0aZWa.52437$YN5.40990@sccrnsc01>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-8989C0.18320502082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <mMWWa.35579$It4.21909@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Control is not always possible (supernovae for example), so either
prediction and control, or simply prediction of real events alone is
sufficient to demonstrate knowledge (Latin word : science) of the nature
of
things.
Predict which part of today's "knowledge" will be the first to
become tomorrow's "mistaken belief", in the way that Newton's
gravitation did.
What's wrong with Newton, knucklehead? Have the laws of motion been repealed
by your church?
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html
In a sense, I suppose that one could say that Septic's church has
repealed Newton's laws.
Specialrelativity and general relativity, parts of the science that
Septic is always swearing by but doesn't really understand, have
"repealed" Newton.
Now I wonder at what points in history Septic would say that
Newtonian mechanics first became "knowledge" and then at what later
point it lost that denotation to revert to only a belief, held by
those, like Septic, who didn't get the word.
And, since Special Relativity is almost a century old, one wonders
how Septic got so far out of the loop.
According to relativity, Newton's theories are not quite true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
03 Aug 2003 05:38:38 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-10D840.22363502082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <0aZWa.52437$YN5.40990@sccrnsc01>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-8989C0.18320502082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <mMWWa.35579$It4.21909@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Control is not always possible (supernovae for example), so either
prediction and control, or simply prediction of real events alone is
sufficient to demonstrate knowledge (Latin word : science) of the
nature
of
things.
Predict which part of today's "knowledge" will be the first to
become tomorrow's "mistaken belief", in the way that Newton's
gravitation did.
What's wrong with Newton, knucklehead? Have the laws of motion been
repealed
by your church?
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html
In a sense, I suppose that one could say that Septic's church has
repealed Newton's laws.
You are evading the question. What's wrong with Newton, knucklehead? Have
the laws of motion been repealed? Demonstrate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
03 Aug 2003 10:31:51 PM |
|
|
In article <OC5Xa.39279$Vt6.14867@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-10D840.22363502082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <0aZWa.52437$YN5.40990@sccrnsc01>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-8989C0.18320502082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <mMWWa.35579$It4.21909@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Control is not always possible (supernovae for example), so either
prediction and control, or simply prediction of real events alone is
sufficient to demonstrate knowledge (Latin word : science) of the
nature
of
things.
Predict which part of today's "knowledge" will be the first to
become tomorrow's "mistaken belief", in the way that Newton's
gravitation did.
What's wrong with Newton, knucklehead? Have the laws of motion been
repealed
by your church?
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html
In a sense, I suppose that one could say that Septic's church has
repealed Newton's laws.
You are evading the question. What's wrong with Newton, knucklehead? Have
the laws of motion been repealed? Demonstrate.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of demonstrations available to
the literate.
That Septic does not "know" what is wrong with Newton is one part of
what is wrong with Septic.
If Septic is going to make a religion out of science, he really
ought to be more aware of what he is worshipping.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
04 Aug 2003 11:15:40 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-E9EF0F.21315103082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <OC5Xa.39279$Vt6.14867@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-10D840.22363502082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <0aZWa.52437$YN5.40990@sccrnsc01>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-8989C0.18320502082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <mMWWa.35579$It4.21909@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Control is not always possible (supernovae for example), so
either
prediction and control, or simply prediction of real events
alone is
sufficient to demonstrate knowledge (Latin word : science) of
the
nature
of
things.
Predict which part of today's "knowledge" will be the first to
become tomorrow's "mistaken belief", in the way that Newton's
gravitation did.
What's wrong with Newton, knucklehead? Have the laws of motion been
repealed
by your church?
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html
In a sense, I suppose that one could say that Septic's church has
repealed Newton's laws.
You are evading the question. What's wrong with Newton, knucklehead?
Have
the laws of motion been repealed? Demonstrate.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of demonstrations available to
the literate.
If you say so, darling. Where do you find them, in the Holy Babble, where
people can move mountains with the faith of a mustard seed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
04 Aug 2003 12:41:55 PM |
|
|
In article <MEvXa.45271$Vt6.16689@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-E9EF0F.21315103082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <OC5Xa.39279$Vt6.14867@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-10D840.22363502082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <0aZWa.52437$YN5.40990@sccrnsc01>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-8989C0.18320502082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <mMWWa.35579$It4.21909@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Control is not always possible (supernovae for example), so
either
prediction and control, or simply prediction of real events
alone is
sufficient to demonstrate knowledge (Latin word : science) of
the
nature
of
things.
Predict which part of today's "knowledge" will be the first to
become tomorrow's "mistaken belief", in the way that Newton's
gravitation did.
What's wrong with Newton, knucklehead? Have the laws of motion been
repealed
by your church?
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html
In a sense, I suppose that one could say that Septic's church has
repealed Newton's laws.
You are evading the question. What's wrong with Newton, knucklehead?
Have
the laws of motion been repealed? Demonstrate.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of demonstrations available to
the literate.
If you say so, darling. Where do you find them, in the Holy Babble, where
people can move mountains with the faith of a mustard seed?
You might start by looking at the works of Albert Einstein.
There is also the matter of the precession of Mercury, the
dispacement of the apparent position of some stars during solar
eclipses, and the behavior of particles in a wide variety of nuclear
accelerators, for physical evidence.
If you are going to worship science, Septic, you realy ought to have
some idea of what your God is all about.
Ignorance may be bliss, but it is an awful handicap in an argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
04 Aug 2003 02:29:43 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-40AD1F.11415404082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <MEvXa.45271$Vt6.16689@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-E9EF0F.21315103082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <OC5Xa.39279$Vt6.14867@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-10D840.22363502082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <0aZWa.52437$YN5.40990@sccrnsc01>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-8989C0.18320502082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <mMWWa.35579$It4.21909@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Control is not always possible (supernovae for example), so
either
prediction and control, or simply prediction of real events
alone is
sufficient to demonstrate knowledge (Latin word : science)
of
the
nature
of
things.
Predict which part of today's "knowledge" will be the first to
become tomorrow's "mistaken belief", in the way that Newton's
gravitation did.
What's wrong with Newton, knucklehead? Have the laws of motion
been
repealed
by your church?
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html
In a sense, I suppose that one could say that Septic's church has
repealed Newton's laws.
You are evading the question. What's wrong with Newton, knucklehead?
Have
the laws of motion been repealed? Demonstrate.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of demonstrations available to
the literate.
If you say so, darling. Where do you find them, in the Holy Babble,
where
people can move mountains with the faith of a mustard seed?
You might start by looking at the works of Albert Einstein.
What, precisely, repeals the laws of motion discovered by Newton? Your
agument is too vague.
There is also the matter of the precession of Mercury, the
dispacement of the apparent position of some stars during solar
eclipses, and the behavior of particles in a wide variety of nuclear
accelerators, for physical evidence.
What is there about any of that which repeals the laws of motion discovered
by Newton, knucklehead? You have some 'splaining to do, Lucy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
04 Aug 2003 10:35:49 PM |
|
|
In article <HuyXa.45639$Vt6.17140@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you say so, darling. Where do you find them, in the Holy
Babble, where people can move mountains with the faith of a
mustard seed?
You might start by looking at the works of Albert Einstein.
What, precisely, repeals the laws of motion discovered by Newton?
Your agument is too vague.
Albert Einstein only seems vague to those too stupid to understand
him.
There is also the matter of the precession of Mercury, the
dispacement of the apparent position of some stars during solar
eclipses, and the behavior of particles in a wide variety of
nuclear accelerators, for physical evidence.
What is there about any of that which repeals the laws of motion
discovered by Newton, knucklehead?
Septic, who claims having sufficient means to educate himself, must
alone bear the responsibilty for his own education in the scienific
advances of the last century. This is one burden that Septic cannot
shove off on others. Though he seems to be trying to do so.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
05 Aug 2003 04:50:45 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Doug Semler <doug_semler@removemewideopenwest.com> wrote:
At some point in the past, Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> posted
this drivel:
What, precisely, repeals the laws of motion discovered by Newton? Your
agument is too vague.
The speed of the object, as it approaches the speed of light. Basic high
school physics. Error increases in the calculations to an unacceptable
level.
It's not error that increases but simply that the Newtonian laws are only
approximations and the approximation is further and further off at higher
speeds.
What is there about any of that which repeals the laws of motion
discovered by Newton, knucklehead? You have some 'splaining to do,
Lucy.
The same reason that relativity calculations don't apply (too much error)
for low-speed physics,
Since when? At lower speeds, the relativity calculations become increasingly
closer to the newtonian ones where the difference becomes less and less the
slower we go. Your statement makes it look like they become further and
further off the slower we go, which is nonsense.
newtonian motion calculations don't apply (too much
error) for high-speed caluclations.
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
--
Mike atheism: a non-prophet organization...
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
-------------------------------
The multi-named one posting under rooster/bob white/sceptic and various other
names (identifiable by the header line reading "NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.231.81.82")
might as well ignore this post. He is a lying, illogical troll who has been
kill-file'd and any posts of his will not be seen or replied to.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
03 Aug 2003 12:08:42 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bggh36$js8@neptune.myri-local.com...
:
;> When did I say it is invisible?
:
;
:Is it visible? Demonstrate.
I didn't say it is visible either. In absence of evidences, it is
wrong to say it is visible or invisible, as Huxley has explained:
"This principle [the agnostic principle] may be stated in various ways,
but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he
is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can
produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what
Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to
Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is
the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to
believe, without logically satisfactory evidence. It was inevitable
that a conflict should arise between Agnosticism and Theology" --
Thomas Huxley, who coined the term 'agnostic' in "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Aug 2003 04:11:44 PM |
|
|
In article <DnQWa.33982$Vt6.13341@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bggh36$js8@neptune.myri-local.com...
When did I say it is invisible?
Is it visible? Demonstrate.
Septic is assuming something exists for which he has no evidence,
namely that when someone does not say something, one automatically
says the opposite.
Since Septic has not said that there is no god, at least in this
post, it follows by Setic logic that he is declaring that a god does
exist.
Septic, you owe it to all of those who have been waiting for this
day to reveal the exact nature of the god you now claim to believe
in.
Note for those who are not as frazzlebrained as Septic, I only
choose to apply Septic's own brand of illogic to Septic's own
utterances.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Aug 2003 04:05:56 PM |
|
|
In article <1fNWa.33641$It4.19503@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bgfear$bjv@neptune.myri-local.com...
Who said we know it exists?
You insist that something you call 'Gawd', though invisible, may in reality
exist anyway.
In the sense that there is no proof that no such thing as a god
exists, the possibility has not been excluded. That is quite
different from saying that a god does in actuality exist.
However Septic Sophy doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference
between what is not known (agnostics) and what is know to be
impossible (According to Septic).
What is that precisely? If you can't explain it, then it is
just meaningless metaphysical speculation with no basis in fact,
knucklehead.
How is it that you are able to tell us what is in somebody else's
mind? No doubt your own personal god, that you are so careful to
hide from us, provides you with these miraculous insights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Aug 2003 04:28:23 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-37BC26.15055602082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <1fNWa.33641$It4.19503@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bgfear$bjv@neptune.myri-local.com...
Who said we know it exists?
You insist that something you call 'Gawd', though invisible, may in
reality
exist anyway.
In the sense that there is no proof that no such thing as a god
exists, the possibility has not been excluded.
That's what I said. You argue _ad ignorantiam_ (shifting the burden of
proof) that it is true that something you call 'Gawd', though invisible, may
in reality exist anyway, because not even a genius like Galileo could ever
prove that hypothesis false. That's logical fallacy, knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
