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 email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at