(February 14, 2012 at 1:50 pm)Cosmic Ape Wrote: 1) Irrelevant, there still isnt any proven knowledge of it.
Depending on your definition of knowledge, the adjective "proven" serves no purpose. Plato defined knowledge as true, justified. belief. Agnostics hold that there as subjective beings, there is no way to determine whether something is objectively true, and as such, all knowledge of this kind is inconclusive. The problem with saying "there still isn't any proven knowledge of it" is that you, as a subjective being, have no insight into the minds of others. What if they did have some kind of proven knowledge? You can't know if they do, since all you "know" is what is in your own mind (and what you mind interprets from reality).
Quote:2) Which one? That's my point.
Do you understand the meaning of the word "general". Like I said before, if there isn't a specific God being mentioned, you should default to the non-specific concept of a God, i.e. some form of supernatural deity who created / controls the universe.
(February 14, 2012 at 2:32 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Are you kidding? Do you think they want to admit to themselves that they've just been talking to themselves all these years and don't really have a close, personal relationship with Jesus?
Their inability to admit to themselves that they're wrong doesn't invalidate your demonstration of how they are wrong.
