RE: Bill O'Reilly punks Richard Dawkins
September 28, 2010 at 10:10 am
(This post was last modified: September 28, 2010 at 10:27 am by Jaysyn.)
(September 26, 2010 at 6:30 pm)Tiberius Wrote:Yes, I did. I posted it as I did to see which side's anal-retentive would nitpick that particular point first. You win!(September 26, 2010 at 11:58 am)Jaysyn Wrote: 1.) You can't prove a negative.Did you actually read the article at that link? It actually contains several counter-arguments to the statement "You can't prove a negative", which is false and rightly so.
(September 26, 2010 at 6:30 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The first is hard because you need to look at the entire football stadium to see if there are any pins. The second is easy because a circle cannot have a square shape as an attribute; it is by definition circular, and therefore cannot also be square. One could disprove God by coming up with contradicting attributes (the omniscient / omnipotence paradox is an attempt at this).Ok, so it's very, very difficult to prove something that is inaudible, intangible & invisible, doesn't exist.
Are we happy now?
"How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping." - Pascal
