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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to