*falls over in confused stupor* -Gel
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I think it's a valid comparison. The Loch Ness monster seems to be a creature of myth. Perfectly rational people believe they have seen Nessy, but there is little if any empirical evidence to support the existence of the Nessy. It is equally hard to prove that God does not exist as it is to prove that Nessy does not exist. As I suggested earlier, the flaw of the game is that it presupposes that faith is not rational. Pure faith can be a rational response to ones environment. You need not be crazy or stupid to have faith. And since all things that cannot be proven one way another (such as the existence or lack of existence of God or Nessy) are matters of faith, to say that faith is irrational is to say that all people are irrational, because all people, at the end of the day, base their ultimate beliefs about God on faith. If all people are irrational, than the statements of none can be trusted. But since we can observe that some people are rational, and since all people have faith, and since in rational people, their faith is founded on some sort of reasonable response to experience, then we must conclude that faith is rational. It is the proclamation of a lack of faith that is irrational because the person who proclaims a lack of faith is denying all evidence to the contrary that he cannot disprove the existence of God. H. ______________________________________________________________________ Macromedia ColdFusion 5 Training from the Source Step by Step ColdFusion http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201758474/houseoffusion Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
