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-____. > 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. 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. > 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. It doesn't make sense to talk about "unknowable" facts. All scientific knowledge is testable, and knowledge is knowable, by definition. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
