| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Wen-King Su" |
| Date: |
11 Aug 2003 03:39:05 PM |
| Object: |
Re: zero godz |
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Mike Smith" <mikesmith@godisdead.com> wrote in message
;news:l3najv8o44iqmaknuqk1u0b7hc26kresr1@4ax.com...
:> (Maria Underwood) wrote:
;>
:> =Mike Smith <mikesmith@godisdead.com> wrote...
;>
:> <snip>
;>
:> => =my point is that many atheists say "define god and show
;> => =me evidence", meaning they have not nor will they produce
:> => =their own definition for god.
;> =>
:> => That's why I start with the dictionary: omni-powerful creator-
;> => god. Believers can always correct me, or expand the
:> => definition from there.
;> =
:> =I agree that according to the definition above, there is no god
;> =nor any evidence for him.
:>
;> What definition do you use?
:>
;> => =If one will not produce a definition, then I can say god is
:> => =whatever the hell I want to and my internal logic/definition
;> => =will be correct. How can you say my lab isn't god - if you
:> => =won't/can't/don't know what god is?
;> =>
:> => Yup. That's probably why believers have gotten more
;> => and more vague when it comes to describing/defining
:> => their god(s).
;> =
:> =Yeah. I've talked with several theists who have tried to explain
;> =to me why god doesn't reveal himself - there is a whole Christian
:> =philosophy behind that. But I don't get it.
;>
:> Possibility: there is no xtian god.
;
:There are no gawds period. If there were, then the true-believers would be
;demonstrating them.
Please prove that if there are any gawds, then the true-believers
would be demonstrating them.
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
