(November 27, 2012 at 11:27 am)Chuck Wrote: Proof in computational science: god as descibed can not exist
Christian, nominally interested in "theoretical" aspects of "science", says on an atheist forum: therefore it is better to ignore the proof.
...? I never said that anyone should ignore any proof.
It's more like this:
P -> (Q or R)
Someone says, "This means that P implies R!" I say, "Well, no, because we know Q is true. We don't have enough to determine whether R is true from P -> (Q or R)."
How does that amount to "We should ignore a proof"?
Quote:Generalizing:
Proof: A therefore not B
Christian: invalid, because god can do anything!
???
Where did I say anything like "That proof is invalid because God can do anything"??????
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
