RE: Hi from Eleazar
April 20, 2011 at 5:42 am
(This post was last modified: April 20, 2011 at 10:41 am by Eleazar.)
Thanks for your welcomes (both conditional and unconditional 
) Aerzia, padraic, Minimalist, tackattack, fr0d0, Cinjin and John.
padraic: My mind is open to any sound argument, and closed to any unsound one.
Minimalist: I'll start a thread about your claim that "there's no evidence". But to summarize the points I'll make, even if one accepts the premise that there is no evidence (whatever definition of evidence you are using) that doesn't constitute an argument; you need another premise (something like "if there's no evidence for something, then it doesn't exist" or "if God existed, then there would be evidence X, Y, Z"). The argument may also have to presuppose a non-theistic account of rationality, which would beg the question.
fr0d0: I'm a low-church Anglican, so cookies are on the house!
Cinjin: I'm made of atoms (so at least I'm not a Cartesian dualist fundie
).
John: This guy seems pretty ticked off, but with good reason.
) Aerzia, padraic, Minimalist, tackattack, fr0d0, Cinjin and John.padraic: My mind is open to any sound argument, and closed to any unsound one.
Minimalist: I'll start a thread about your claim that "there's no evidence". But to summarize the points I'll make, even if one accepts the premise that there is no evidence (whatever definition of evidence you are using) that doesn't constitute an argument; you need another premise (something like "if there's no evidence for something, then it doesn't exist" or "if God existed, then there would be evidence X, Y, Z"). The argument may also have to presuppose a non-theistic account of rationality, which would beg the question.
fr0d0: I'm a low-church Anglican, so cookies are on the house!
Cinjin: I'm made of atoms (so at least I'm not a Cartesian dualist fundie
).John: This guy seems pretty ticked off, but with good reason.
