Beth: This is from memory, so hopefully I get this correct ...
I said, it is rational to believe there is no Nessy even though there is no proof there is no nessy. Then I said a person who says there is no God, even without proof that there is no God, is making a statement of faith. They "hit" me for this (I posted all of this early on, btw) because they said this was a logical contradiction. My whole point has been that it's not a logical contradiction. For this to be a contradiction, you would have to believe that faith without proof is irrational. H. -----Original Message----- From: BethF [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 9:56 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Battleground God -- Talking God Outside the Universe ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 10:29 PM Subject: RE: Battleground God -- Talking God Outside the Universe > Good. I feel saner to know that two people who normally disagree with me > agree on what I view as a fundamental and logical proposition. And going > back to one of my chief points about a problem with the game. I am a bit burned out so I still am vaguely confused. My impression of the game is that it just checked consistency - i.e. if you responded that you think that you can disprove something by lack of evidence in the case of nessie then you can also disprove god by lack of evidence. I didnt' get the notion that they were saying that belief without proof is irrational - although since my answers were far different than yours i am sure I might not have seen this. What exactly did they say that made you think that they think faith without proof is illogical? ______________________________________________________________________ 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
