RE: Must all be proven?
October 12, 2009 at 7:11 pm
(This post was last modified: October 12, 2009 at 7:12 pm by theVOID.)
(October 12, 2009 at 6:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(October 10, 2009 at 9:12 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: So if there WAS some proof of gods existance you'd discount it, because it can't be proved by science yeah.
Bet it wouldn't play out like that eh Frodo
Scientific proof is a logical impossibility; like a 5 sided square. I have no need to discount it or not.
(October 12, 2009 at 12:47 pm)Saerules Wrote:
I'm sorry fr0d0... all it meant when the term was coined was 'non-christian'. Now it means the above. TBF made no mistake when stating that all it meant was 'non-Christians'.
TBF claimed that 'pagan' meant no belief in God, which is still wrong under your definition.
Well actually - no. We could measure a positive statistical correlation showing that people who pray receive benefits from their action or the subversion of the natural order when a miracle is performed. If an amputee grew back a limb i would be straight on the God wagon.
.
