Fair enough...
Even the term 'actual proof' is open to subjectivity. There's many things
we will never sense directly through our 5 senses, yet we pretty much
believe in their existence. Black holes for instance... in the past,
predicted but undiscovered planets in the solar system.
I look at the world and the universe, and it's complexity, elegance, it's
many systems, chemical, organic, etc., that are all intertwined and
dependent and come to the conclusion there must be a maker. There may be no
more hard proof than that, except that many scientists, the deeper they dig,
the more evidence they find for a designer.
I, personally have enjoyed this diversion in which we put forth our views,
knowing we won't convince others of them in a simple internet conversation,
if at all...
For my part, I'm going to try and steer back towards photography, if not
Pentax...
Tom C.
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:15:18 -0600
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy
What do you consider evidence? That's a key question.
Actual proof that something exists.
In your gravity example, the fact that I am (more than I care for) solidly
attached to the chair I am sitting in is proof that what we call gravity is
real.
Understanding the mechanics of it doesn't matter.
My wife's eyes glaze over when I start explaining the finer points of
carburetion, but this doesn't stop her from using her carburetted Toyota to
drive downtown.
In the God example, the evidence (for me) just isn't there.
You may believe in a supreme being (actually, so do I, but not in the same
way religious people do), a creator or whatever, but I have been shown no
hard proof of this existence.
William Robb
