On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> For example, they [Dawkins and Stenger] never say that they *assume* the > existence of a primary physical universe > Do they really have to state that they assume existence exists? It would be great if I could explain exactly why there is something rather than nothing but unfortunately I don't know how to do that, but a atheist does not need to, it's not as if the God Hypothesis can provide even a hint of a answer. > they dismiss the mind-body problem, they dismiss the mind problem, and > the body problem. > it would be great if I could explain exactly what the nature of consciousness is, but unfortunately I don't know how to do that, but a atheist does not need to, it's not as if the God Hypothesis can provide even a hint of a answer. And I didn't even know the body was a problem. > > This is just arrogant. > Arrogant?? Like any good scientist Dawkins is always quick to say "I don't know", but theologians always know, they even know the trivial little likes and dislikes of a infinite being, although I've never understood how something a omnipotent being dislikes could continue to exist or even existed in the first place. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
