RE: Evidence God Exists: Part II
June 22, 2010 at 9:36 am
(This post was last modified: June 22, 2010 at 9:39 am by rjh4 is back.)
(June 21, 2010 at 7:26 pm)theVOID Wrote: If you can't prove there is a God i'm not going to believe in it, it is as simple as that.
Hi, Void. It has been a while since we last chatted.
I was wondering if you meant this statement at face value or whether you were exaggerating a bit (or maybe chose the wrong words). If it was meant at face value then I would be interested in hearing your opinion on the thread "What science can prove". It seems to me that a lot of your atheist friends here don't think that science can "prove" anything. If you agree that science cannot prove anything and I am quite sure from previous conversations that you think science is the best methodology to use for finding out what the truth is, I wonder how anyone could possibly "prove there is a God" to your satisfaction. So I guess my questions boil down to this: What do you mean by "prove" in your statement above?
(June 22, 2010 at 9:27 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Not to pre-empt thor's reply rjh4 but it would think it is obvious....plausibility is devoid of a 'skydaddy' getting blamed for everything.
It sounds like you are saying that "plausibility" by definition excludes the possibility of God. If so, on what grounds do you make such a statement. If not, please clarify what you mean.
