From: Walter Watts (wlwatts@cox.net)
Date: Tue Mar 26 2002 - 10:25:40 MST
;-]>
Michelle wrote:
> Exactly, Mr. Ben! It's completely unknowable, and IMO, folly to pursue.
> Someone's always going to have a counter to any argument on the subject
> because you can pretty much make one up on the spot and it works. There
> have been so many times in our past that we've thought we knew
> everything...!
>
> The question that seems more relevant is whether or not the question of the
> existence of god(s) is relevant. Since we can't answer sanely on the
> existence question, due to lack of evidence/exploratory procedures/consensus
> on the nature of deity, the one question intimate to our lives should be the
> relevance question.
>
> *Of course, if any specific deity exists that's been written about and
> issued proclamations, then obviously that deity would care if we believe,
> and thus it would be quite relevant when the time came. But those deities
> are the ones that are easily debunked by the debunking types, because they
> quantify themselves. (unless we consider both the quantifications and the
> proclamations to be imperfect human translations of divine communication, in
> which case the question is much more open...)
-- Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc. "No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:45 MDT