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:
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.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at