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@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
