----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 10:19 PM Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism.
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 10:01:36PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > But if one is describing a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, > > eternal, and infinite, then minds such as ours could not encompass > > even the scope of such a being. > > Speak for yourself, man! My mind is certainly capable of the concepts of > infinity, eternity, and omni-____. Certainly, but neither your mind or mine can *be* those things. I don't think that a gerbil could model human behavior, and in that sense and being that is worth of the title "God" would be beyond our ability to model. > > > We may not even be able to recognize evidence of "Gods" existence for > > what it is, considering how little we actually know about the universe > > and the nature of reality. > > Then it isn't useful evidence, and certainly isn't scientific evidence. Absolutely, it isn't really useful knowledge at all, but assuming that "God" exists, the useless facts would still be true, regardless of our ability to process the evidence. > When I talk about knowledge and evidence in this context, I am referring > to the best system that has yet been developed for testing our > knowledge: science. Don't get me wrong, I agree wholeheartedly. But i do wonder if there are not limitations to what we "can" know. Maybe the physics folk can chime in on that point. > > > In such a case, the facts are unavailable, the truth is unknowable, > > and any adherence to the polar extremes of the question "Does God > > exist?" is absolutely a matter of faith. > > Facts are not "unknowable", almost by definition. True, but thats not what I said there. There are many facts that are unavailable at any given time. And I know I will get lectured for using the word "truth" in this kind of discussion won't I Dan!<G> > It doesn't make sense > to talk about "unknowable" facts. All scientific knowledge is testable, > and knowledge is knowable, by definition. I would think that anything one might call "scientific knowledge" has already been tested. But there may be hypothesis that are ultimately untestable. "Does God exist?" is one I think. Any others? xponent Does Rob Exist? Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
