Brent Meeker wrote: > An excellent essay. I agree with almost everything you wrote; and you put it > very well. Would you mind if I cross posted it to Vic Stenger's AVOID-L > mailing list. You can check out the list here: > http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/ >
Although Victor Stenger doesn't use the word "anti-natural", the following equation is what he is assuming in his atheistic arguments: supernatural = anti-natural. Therefore he thinks that a proof of theism would amount to finding a violation of natural law. Since he finds no such violation (which I would argue is a circular argument based on the definition of natural) he claim this proves atheism beyond a reasonable doubt (what is the measure of certainty/uncertainty?). In terms of Bruno's provability, this is akin to saying that a proof of the existence of a non-trivial G*/G can be obtained by finding an inconsistency in G. This does not make sense. This is like saying the only god that can exist is an inconsistent god. Tom --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
