Tom Caylor wrote:
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>> An excellent essay. I agree with almost everything you wrote; and you put it very well. Would you mind if I cross posted it to Vic Stenger's AVOID-L mailing list. You can check out the list here: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/
>>
>
> Although Victor Stenger doesn't use the word "anti-natural", the
> following equation is what he is assuming in his atheistic arguments:
> supernatural = anti-natural.
>
> Therefore he thinks that a proof of theism would amount to finding a
> violation of natural law. Since he finds no such violation (which I
> would argue is a circular argument based on the definition of natural)
> he claim this proves atheism beyond a reasonable doubt (what is the
> measure of certainty/uncertainty?).
>
> In terms of Bruno's provability, this is akin to saying that a proof of
> the existence of a non-trivial G*/G can be obtained by finding an
> inconsistency in G. This does not make sense. This is like saying the
> only god that can exist is an inconsistent god.
A theist God (as opposed to a deist God) is one who intervenes in the natural order, i.e. does miracles. Stenger will readily admit that his argument does not apply to a deist God.
Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Nov 07 2006 - 19:49:21 PST