On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Erik Reuter wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 03:25:14PM -0700, Deborah
> Harrell wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 22 Jun 2002, William T Goodall wrote:
> >
> > > This follows from basic logic. If you insert a
> false axiom into a
> > > system ("There is a God" for example) you can
> then prove *anything
> > > at all* to be true, and thereby justify any act.
<major snippage>
>
> > And (now I'm nit-picking) how can you _disprove_
> an unprovable premise
> > eg "There is a God?" (All those catechism lessons,
> and I only remember
>
> It is not necessary to disprove the existence of
> "God". It is sufficient
> for William's statement that no-one can prove the
> existence of "God". If
> you insert "there is a God" (and all that entails)
> into a system,
> then you can use it to justify a lot of things ("God
> told me to do
> it"). But unless someone can prove that "there is a
> God", then all the
> justifications based on that "axiom" are meaningless
> to someone with a
> different set of axioms.
Of course any delusional person can think that "God
told me to do" something; one of my points (perhaps I
wasn't clear enough) was that IF one claims to be of a
particular faith, one _should_ follow the precepts of
that faith, not do whatever the heck one pleases.
And since I ask no-one to behave or believe as I do
_regarding a deity_, I do not have to 'prove' the
existence of one. [I _do_ expect people to behave in a
civilized manner, but that isn't dependent on belief
in a god.]
Debbi
who really is a heretic, and probably a heathen to
boot, by traditional Christian standards
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com
