Any comparison is fraught with pitfalls, of course. We know much more about Nessy than we know about God, for example. We can feel much safer in saying Nessy doesn't exist than in saying God doesn't exist because Nessy is still limited by the laws of nature. Since God wrote the laws of nature, he's not bound them (or even exists within them).
So, yes, if you get quite literal about it, the comparison fails. But as a matter of philosophy, which is what the game is about, it works. H. -----Original Message----- From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 2:47 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Battleground God I agree from a pure logical point of view, but I took the question literally. I think there has enough scientific studies that prove that the monster doesn't exist. Besides we can go empty the lake if we had too. We can't however, keep digging till we reach Hell or keep flying till we reach Heaven. That's where I felt the comparison failed. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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. > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
