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.

Reply via email to