Koyaanisqatsi

Well, then, sorry for the confusion, Clutch, I thought you were going for the empricism vs. solipsism pointlessness and only sought to head that off at the pass, as it were.

All to often, in my experience, people argue solipsism, especially, as a means to sidetrack into pointless arguments about how one can never really "know" anything "outside" of one's self, so whenever I smell it (or think I smell it) I always try to stop it before it begins.

St. Robert

There is no sound theist argument that can convince man of the realities of God. Most of what God does and has done doesn't make much sense to the carnal man.

Tell me, when did your heart get so petrified toward God?

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: St. Robert ]</p>

Echo

I'm not sure what you mean when you ask people "when their hearts became petrified toward God."

Are you asking them why they do not believe a god actually exists, or are you implying that they have decided they do not want a god to exist and thus are being willfully obstinate and refusing to consider any evidence a theist puts forth? If that is the case, I'm not sure how you have reached this conclusion, since the atheists on this board have made it clear time and time again that their disbelief stems from theism's failure to make a convincing case for the existence of a god.

daemon

Firstly, a single belief does not a worldview make. <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=worldview" target="_blank">Consult a dictionary.</a>

Secondly, your characterization of what makes an atheist is at least incomplete, as I do not believe there is no evidence of God; my beliefs entail only my lack of experience with such evidence.

Synaesthesia

St. Robert:
There is no sensible reason to believe in God then.

*Syn's heart becomes slightly more petrified to God*

Tom Piper

Koyaanisqatsi,

When you ask if anyone can think of a sound argument for the existence of God, do you mean can she/he think of a sound argument, or a sound argument that you can see to be a sound argument?

I assume that you allow that there can be sound arguments that some others, but not you, can see to be sound-- or don't you?

Tom

Tom Piper

Synaesthesia, all,

Is there a sound argument showing that there was a philosopher named 'Socrates'?

Is there a sound argument showing that there was a person by the name of 'Thomas Jefferson' who played a signifcant role in the early history of the United States?

Is there a sound argument that shows that Thomas Jefferson's (the TJ mentioned above) mother was married to his father?

If you think there can be sound arguments for any of the above, (or for ll) will you produce them for us!

Tom

TooBad

If there were any empirical evidence for God, and if it were anything like as reliable as the evidence for Socrates and Jefferson, there would be no serious debate about his existence. It is the complete lack of such evidence that leads some people to resort to specious logic, which purports to prove that God must exist by definition. All such reasoning is circular and therefore fallacious.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Koy,

Aha.


You have just now changed your case for milk from a sound proof (logically valid, all true premises) to a mere argument from empirical evidence.


The subjective nature of emperical evidence entails that it can *never* be absolutely known as truth. This violates the requirements of 'sound proof'...that all premises must necessarily be true.





Game. Set. Match.

SOMMS

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

Goliath

SOMMS,

I hold no such belief. I am an atheist. You are therefore demonstrably wrong.

Sincerely,

Goliath