(Ron) How about a Little Proof, Ron?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Hello, Ron!

At 02:42 AM 4/26/98 -0400, Brian Dean wrote:

>TILL

>Yes, yes, yes, Ron, we all know that this is what the Catholic Church

>claims, but as strange as it may seem to you, we would like to see a 

>little proof that this is a fact and not just a religious doctrine that 

>carries no more weight than any religious doctrine of Mormons, Muslims, 

>Hindus, etc. Do you have any such evidence to present?  I didn't think so.

>

>RON

>  Once again I will ask you in turn for evidence that God does NOT 

>exist. And once again you will have no evidence to disprove the 

>experience of multitudes. You seek to disprove our experience based on 

>your lack of experience. In spite of all your protestations I think that 

>your problem is that you simply dislike God. A bit of adolescent 

>rebellion.  



CREA
    It would help immensely if you were to provide a definition of just what
you mean by the word "God", as well as define any problematic terms used in
that definition, and assert your intention to abide by those definitions for
the duration of any discussion relative to the non-existence of "God".  If
you, for example, maintain that "God" is "omniscient", you are expected to
define "omniscient" as you are using it.  After all, there is nothing more
pathetic than to see a theist assert that "God has property X", and as soon
as it is demonstrated that "property X" is incoherent or self-contradictory,
tell us that he was using the term "property X" in an entirely different
manner than the one analyzed and found wanting.


With Mettaa,

Joseph Crea
<Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net>

• Previous message: (Ron) How about a Little Proof, Ron?
• Next message: (Ron) How about a Little Proof, Ron?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]