LNC Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 The point is that the pastor was using the presumed uniqueness of earth's life sustaining qualities as supporting evidence of God's existance. With our limited resources, humanity has its own evidence that there are other planets with life sustaining properties. From a scientific standpoint, the uniqueness of earth has to be removed as an argument. I think Neon was dead on in identifying a poor argument in the pastor's position. Neon's point doesn't disprove the pastor, but it does remove the pastors argument from the mix. As athesists/agnostics/pantheists/wiccans/anything but christians, we aren't concerned with proving to anyone that god does't exist. We don't care what you believe, but you seem awefully invested in what we believe. What evidence do you have for planets with life-sustaining properties? I asked which planets these were and so far have been told of planets and a moon for which we have no confirmed evidence of life-sustaining properties. Maybe you would like to introduce some other candidates since you seem convinced that we have knowledge of them. Why does the uniqueness of earth need to be removed from a scientific standpoint? Shouldn't the evidence lead us to draw conclusions? So far, we don't have evidence to draw the conclusion that Earth is not unique in its life-sustaining characteristics. There are many characteristics of Earth that are unique from other planets that we have observed and to simply conclude that it is not unique without evidence is to make an unsubstantiated supposition, that is not science. Neon's argument, as far as it pertains to other planets being life-sustaining has been shown to be lacking in evidential support, so therefore, it is not valid. For an argument to be valid, the evidence has to bear it out. The pastor's argument still stands as it is evidentially supported. You cannot simply say that an argument is not refuted, but it is removed from the mix, that is not logical. I didn't start the thread to show that athesists/agnostics/pantheists/wiccans/anything but christians are wrong, rather it was started by Neon to show that the Christian pastor was wrong, so apparently he does care what Christians believe. I have merely come on this thread to question some of the validity of some of the arguments. Look at your bible. The 1st century church was concerend wtih recruiting, but if people didn't want to join, they just chalked them up as hell kindling and left the heathens alone. Did they try to stop the heathens from worshiping or not worshiping something? No. Did they try to prove their point over and over to them? No. All they wanted was to be left in peace and allowed to tell their story. That is a far cry from Christians today. If the churches just tried to get people to come and only pestered them once and then left them alone, no biggie. However, christians today aren't satistifed with that. They want to tell the rest of us who we can marry, if we can sell alcohol on a certain day of the week, who we can sleep with, etc. The list goes on and on. Worship who you want and leave the rest of us alone. Your grasp on first century history is lacking. Have you read the book of Acts? Read chapter 17 and tell me that Paul wasn't about making a case for Christianity. In fact, read the rest of Acts and tell me that wasn't what what happening. The word hell doesn't even show up in that book, so you are mistaken there as well. It was Jesus who spoke the most about hell and judgment. The fact is that the Christians weren't left alone in peace to "tell their story," rather, they were persecuted in many different ways by those who didn't like their story or the God of whom the story was about. I'm not sure where you live, but where i live Christians don't act the way that you have described. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 But be ready anyway. The next five years might be interesting. I have not problem if other planets are found that can support life. I look forward to the discoveries that lie ahead. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 But be ready anyway. The next five years might be interesting. I have not problem if other planets are found that can support life. I look forward to the discoveries that lie ahead. LNC Me too. I hope we just can get a warp drive and explore them up close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 This "the uniqueness of Earth's life-sustaining capabilities" argument is contradictory in Christian theology anyway because according to Christian theology, there are in fact other worlds where life exists. There's heaven and hell which are other worlds where Christians claim God and Satan live forever. So either Earth is the only planet capable of sustaining life and heaven and hell don't exist or there are other dimensions where supernatural beings live for eternity and Earth is not a unique home to life in the universe but Christians can't have both. I do agree that we are not the only type of life that exists, the Bible speaks of spiritual beings that exist (angels, demons, etc.) Nowhere does it say that the life in those realms is the type that requires physical existence. I think what we are discussing, however, is physical life on other planets. For that type of life to exist, certain physical properties must exist outside of our planet and that is what we are discussing. Hopefully, this will keep the discussion on the right track. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 the Bible speaks utter nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 5, 2011 Author Share Posted January 5, 2011 First of all, I never claimed that they did have life sustaining properties. I said they had the capabilities to have life sustaining properties which is entirely different. Second of all, if there's no ocean under Europa's surface, what else could be under all that ice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 But be ready anyway. The next five years might be interesting. I have not problem if other planets are found that can support life. I look forward to the discoveries that lie ahead. LNC Me too. I hope we just can get a warp drive and explore them up close. That would be cool. I've always been a Star Trek fan, it would be interesting to see that become reality, although I think there would be a lot of challenges to travelling that fast through a space filled with all kinds of debris. The faster the ship, the more volatile those little particles become, not to mention the radiation problem. It will be interesting to find out if we can overcome these problems. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 First of all, I never claimed that they did have life sustaining properties. I said they had the capabilities to have life sustaining properties which is entirely different. Second of all, if there's no ocean under Europa's surface, what else could be under all that ice? OK, that's a fine distinction between being capable of and having life-sustaining properties. However, it seems that if it was capable of having the properties, it would have them, wouldn't it? If not, what would the distinction be? Regarding the ice sheet, it depends what the temperature of the core of the planet is. So far, we can't make any conclusive determinations about that, so it is possible that it could be a solid, or at least, nearly solid ice sheet. Hopefully, the next probes will reveal more. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Isn't the argument that it was created perfect (Eden) and we (humans) fucked it up? In regards to humanity and the idea of sin, life, etc, yes, but not the physical laws. I wasn't clear or explained that I was focused on the idea that this world has perfect physical laws. Everything is fine tuned, according to the argument, and it says that there are no other way a universe could be made. We wouldn't exist if just one little thingy was different. If that's true, Heaven and Hell as real worlds must be fine tuned the exact same way. But on the other hand, if Heaven and Hell are "fine tuned" in a different way, then our world's "fine tuning" isn't the only one possible, but there could be an infinite numbers of other ways of tuning a universe. There should at least be three or four. I thought Heaven and Hell were supposed to be all-spirit. All souls, no bodies, thus no physical laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 5, 2011 Author Share Posted January 5, 2011 OK, that's a fine distinction between being capable of and having life-sustaining properties. However, it seems that if it was capable of having the properties, it would have them, wouldn't it? LNC That's like arguing since a woman has the capability of being pregnant, the woman must therefore be pregnant and if the woman isn't pregnant, she must not have the capability of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted January 5, 2011 Super Moderator Share Posted January 5, 2011 “Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ - Douglas Adams I can't believe the fine tuned argument is still in use. I guess I really shouldn't be surprised, though. Appropriate life forms took hold where conditions were hospitable. If the air were thinner on this planet we would have bigger lungs. If the planet had stronger gravity we would likely be shorter in stature. We adapted to planetary conditions, not the other way around. I think it is highly likely that life forms similar to those on Earth (and some quite unlike those on Earth) have developed on other planets in this vast universe. The stuff of life is everywhere. Besides, who says the most advanced life form on a given planet must be bipedal and carbon based? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 OK, that's a fine distinction between being capable of and having life-sustaining properties. However, it seems that if it was capable of having the properties, it would have them, wouldn't it? LNC That's like arguing since a woman has the capability of being pregnant, the woman must therefore be pregnant and if the woman isn't pregnant, she must not have the capability of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 That would be cool. I've always been a Star Trek fan, it would be interesting to see that become reality, although I think there would be a lot of challenges to travelling that fast through a space filled with all kinds of debris. I'm a ST fan too, not a geek trekkie, but I like the show and watched most of them. And I agree about the debris problem. It was something that struck me too a while back. The only way would have to have some shield that would "bump" them off, but it would mean that the field would be in front of the ship, and I can't even begin to imagine the problems it would have with with FTL, relativity, and all that stuff. The faster the ship, the more volatile those little particles become, not to mention the radiation problem. It will be interesting to find out if we can overcome these problems. Very true. For once we agree. Let's savor the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Isn't the argument that it was created perfect (Eden) and we (humans) fucked it up? In regards to humanity and the idea of sin, life, etc, yes, but not the physical laws. I wasn't clear or explained that I was focused on the idea that this world has perfect physical laws. Everything is fine tuned, according to the argument, and it says that there are no other way a universe could be made. We wouldn't exist if just one little thingy was different. If that's true, Heaven and Hell as real worlds must be fine tuned the exact same way. But on the other hand, if Heaven and Hell are "fine tuned" in a different way, then our world's "fine tuning" isn't the only one possible, but there could be an infinite numbers of other ways of tuning a universe. There should at least be three or four. I thought Heaven and Hell were supposed to be all-spirit. All souls, no bodies, thus no physical laws. Well, there must be some kind of existence. And that existence must have some kind of natural laws embedded, otherwise it would be just a mess and chaos. It's the limitations of the laws of physics that enables us to have a body, motion, mind, sight, etc. If all is just a huge mishmash, then what is what? No rules of anything? Even for a spirit there would have to be a form of limitations to the existence, and those limitations would follow set rules (or laws). That world would be considered the new "natural" world. And as such, it would in Heaven be a "more perfect" set of "natural laws" than here. So this place is then not so perfect. Just think about this, are you right now, in this moment when you read this, thinking about all possible things that anyone could ever think about for eternity? No, you're probably not. Your mind is focused on one or few thoughts at a time, which is key to be able to experience a present and being able to think thoughts where A leads to B which leads to C and so on. If you would be thinking all possible thoughts at once, which thought is the one you would act upon? Limitations and the finite components of nature is what makes life possible, and I'm quite certain this would apply even to a spiritual existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Isn't the argument that it was created perfect (Eden) and we (humans) fucked it up? In regards to humanity and the idea of sin, life, etc, yes, but not the physical laws. I wasn't clear or explained that I was focused on the idea that this world has perfect physical laws. Everything is fine tuned, according to the argument, and it says that there are no other way a universe could be made. We wouldn't exist if just one little thingy was different. If that's true, Heaven and Hell as real worlds must be fine tuned the exact same way. But on the other hand, if Heaven and Hell are "fine tuned" in a different way, then our world's "fine tuning" isn't the only one possible, but there could be an infinite numbers of other ways of tuning a universe. There should at least be three or four. I thought Heaven and Hell were supposed to be all-spirit. All souls, no bodies, thus no physical laws. Well, there must be some kind of existence. And that existence must have some kind of natural laws embedded, otherwise it would be just a mess and chaos. It's the limitations of the laws of physics that enables us to have a body, motion, mind, sight, etc. If all is just a huge mishmash, then what is what? No rules of anything? Even for a spirit there would have to be a form of limitations to the existence, and those limitations would follow set rules (or laws). That world would be considered the new "natural" world. And as such, it would in Heaven be a "more perfect" set of "natural laws" than here. So this place is then not so perfect. Hm. I thought their whole idea of the afterlife was that it is wholly supernatural... No? Just think about this, are you right now, in this moment when you read this, thinking about all possible things that anyone could ever think about for eternity? No, you're probably not. Your mind is focused on one or few thoughts at a time, which is key to be able to experience a present and being able to think thoughts where A leads to B which leads to C and so on. If you would be thinking all possible thoughts at once, which thought is the one you would act upon? In the pure spirit state, what could it mean to act? Wouldn't a pure spirit just "be"? Would "at once" also have no meaning, as we would be out of time? "Time" is a function of our physical perception in these bodies in a system of natural laws, right? For the pure spirit being, there is no time. Every moment is the present and every thought is in the present. Limitations and the finite components of nature is what makes life possible, and I'm quite certain this would apply even to a spiritual existence. "Life"? You mean breathing? Spirit is breathless, boneless. Unalive in the physical sense. I have a funny feeling your reply is going to be way over my head. *grin* Man...why do I have to think. I wish I had been born an amoeba! Phanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 How can something "be" or "exist" unless it has borders? Can you look at a large white paper and see a cow, pillow, or a snowman? How about you have a white paper and there are black lines outlining a cow, a pillow, and a snowman? Can you see them then? You can only see something if there's something that divides this and that. To be a spirit and have an identity as "I am a spirit, and you are a spirit" and have the intention that we are two individual spirits in a spirit world, then there must be some kind of line that separates your spirit from my spirit. Unless, of course, we all are just a big huge infinite spirit and no one has any unique or individual identity. But then, what is heaven but a large ocean of all things being one? Is Heaven just a oneness of all and no identity, and Hell just as much? Then there's no suffering or reward really, because we will not be "we" in the sense of individuals, but "we" in the sense of a large goo. But even the Heaven goo and Hell goo can't be divided either since it would suggest a division. To exist in some form requires some form of order. And order is law. It's about establishing separation between things, and order or laws would be part of that. Put it this way. Let's say we are going to Heaven. We will see Jesus. Okay, we'll see Jesus with "spiritual eyes." But we still have an experience of something that we would call "seeing" in that world. It's a world where seeing with spiritual eyes is possible. To see one thing and not the other thing requires a certain order of how things a seen in this spiritual world. You can't' see ALL things at once because then you're not experiencing an event of seeing something. You know the stories from the Bible with the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man in Hell and Lazarus with Abraham. There's a separation between Hell and Abraham, and the rich man calls out to Abraham (or Lazarus, I don't remember). They exist in separate places. The man in thirsty. He is calling out. They see each other. The converse in meanings. Abraham use logic to explain what, how, and why things can't be done. Etc. It's essentially a place where things happens and not just random chaos of spirit goo floating around. So no, the Christian Heaven and Hell are most definitely considered real places, not physical, but still places. Think of spirit as a body in a different dimension. Other laws apply, but still it's a place and other laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Ok, thanks for the reply, Hans. I'm going to take a bit of time to think on this. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Ok, thanks for the reply, Hans. I'm going to take a bit of time to think on this. P I came to think of a better way to get you ponder about this. Do we call it a spiritual world? If we consider it to be some form of "world," then what does this term "word" really mean to you? What does in entail? I had another thought as well. Let's say the spirit world is nothing but a dream state. Anything is possible because whatever we dream up, exists or happens. That would be a world without rules or laws. But then let's say you and I meet. You decided to dream that you see me. But I, only because I'm a bit devious, decide to dream up that I'm invisible so you can't see me. Will you see me or not? There will be a conflict here in this world of "anything is possible." Who or what decides what will happen in this instance? Nothing? If so, then we have a contradiction of events. Both things are happening and are true at the same time. Logic breaks down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 Unless, of course, we all are just a big huge infinite spirit and no one has any unique or individual identity. But then, what is heaven but a large ocean of all things being one? Is Heaven just a oneness of all and no identity, and Hell just as much? Then there's no suffering or reward really, because we will not be "we" in the sense of individuals, but "we" in the sense of a large goo. But even the Heaven goo and Hell goo can't be divided either since it would suggest a division. Isn't this an actual scientific theory? That eventually the universe will stop expanding and then everything will sort of mesh together and the universe will start back up again after everything collapses on itself or something? So no, the Christian Heaven and Hell are most definitely considered real places, not physical, but still places. Think of spirit as a body in a different dimension. Other laws apply, but still it's a place and other laws. Christian apologists try to get around these problems by claiming God exists outside the universe and so the same laws and logic of this universe don't apply to God. But if you can't use the laws and logic of this universe to disprove the existence of God, then you can't use the laws and logic of this universe to prove the existence of God either. You can only be agnostic about the existence of God and any further knowledge claim about God is based on faith and not proof. But Christian apologists want it both ways where God is immune to any logic of this universe that makes its existence difficult while at the same time using the logic of this universe to prove its existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Isn't this an actual scientific theory? That eventually the universe will stop expanding and then everything will sort of mesh together and the universe will start back up again after everything collapses on itself or something? No, it's not expanding to a mishmash of things. It's expanding to a point where even atoms break apart and the quarks are all completely free from each other. And all will still follow physical laws. My "mishmash" was a state of completely unity of all spirits in a complete chaos. Christian apologists try to get around these problems by claiming God exists outside the universe and so the same laws and logic of this universe don't apply to God. Not these laws from this universe, of course not. But the word "exists" means that there are some rules to that beings existence. You can get around that some conditions and restraints must exist for something to exist. God is not, according to Christians, part of this world, like you said, but outside. So God has a definition and restriction. There's a spiritual-physical law that divides God from the physical world. So at least one law must exist in the Christian spiritual world. But if you can't use the laws and logic of this universe to disprove the existence of God, then you can't use the laws and logic of this universe to prove the existence of God either. My argument was not about disproving God's existence, but to prove that Heaven and Hell must have some "nature" laws that guides those worlds. You can only be agnostic about the existence of God and any further knowledge claim about God is based on faith and not proof. But Christian apologists want it both ways where God is immune to any logic of this universe that makes its existence difficult while at the same time using the logic of this universe to prove its existence. Of course they do. Like I said earlier, they only stretch logic and reason as far as it fits them, and then belief in magic takes over. With magic, even logic can be broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 OK, that's a fine distinction between being capable of and having life-sustaining properties. However, it seems that if it was capable of having the properties, it would have them, wouldn't it? LNC That's like arguing since a woman has the capability of being pregnant, the woman must therefore be pregnant and if the woman isn't pregnant, she must not have the capability of it. I hope you are not trying to make a comparison between a person with certain capabilities and a planet which either resides in a habitable region or does not. I don't think it is a good comparison. If a planet has the features that would allow for habitability, then it would be habitable. If a woman has the features that allow her to become pregnant, it doesn't mean that she would have to be pregnant as other factors would have to happen for that to be true. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I can't believe the fine tuned argument is still in use. I guess I really shouldn't be surprised, though. Appropriate life forms took hold where conditions were hospitable. If the air were thinner on this planet we would have bigger lungs. If the planet had stronger gravity we would likely be shorter in stature. We adapted to planetary conditions, not the other way around. I think it is highly likely that life forms similar to those on Earth (and some quite unlike those on Earth) have developed on other planets in this vast universe. The stuff of life is everywhere. Besides, who says the most advanced life form on a given planet must be bipedal and carbon based? You seem to argue as if this is strictly a theistic argument, which it is not. Scientist clearly understand that the universe is finely tuned. The question is not whether it is finely tuned, but why it is finely tuned. Fine tuning is not just a factor of life (although the conditions for life are finely tuned), it is also a factor for the existence of planets, stars, moons, and other stellar bodies. However, what you propose is merely a question-begging explanation. It still does not answer the question as to how and why the conditions of the universe are life-permitting at all. Can you give me a reason that you hold the view that life forms similar to Earth's exist on other planets? We have no empirical data to suggest this, so what would be the reason for you holding this unsupported view? I don't think that anyone has argued that the most advanced form of life is bipedal and carbon based, did I miss something? LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I'm a ST fan too, not a geek trekkie, but I like the show and watched most of them. And I agree about the debris problem. It was something that struck me too a while back. The only way would have to have some shield that would "bump" them off, but it would mean that the field would be in front of the ship, and I can't even begin to imagine the problems it would have with with FTL, relativity, and all that stuff. Agreed. I'm guessing that it would have to be made of material that we have yet to discover as the types of material that we do know of would have to be too thick and bulky to permit efficient space travel. The other option would be some sort of energy shield, but that would require an energy source that we don't know of yet either since what we do know of would not last long enough to achieve any distance before running out. Very true. For once we agree. Let's savor the moment. See, there is a common bond to be found somewhere among all men! LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Isn't the argument that it was created perfect (Eden) and we (humans) fucked it up? In regards to humanity and the idea of sin, life, etc, yes, but not the physical laws. I wasn't clear or explained that I was focused on the idea that this world has perfect physical laws. Everything is fine tuned, according to the argument, and it says that there are no other way a universe could be made. We wouldn't exist if just one little thingy was different. If that's true, Heaven and Hell as real worlds must be fine tuned the exact same way. But on the other hand, if Heaven and Hell are "fine tuned" in a different way, then our world's "fine tuning" isn't the only one possible, but there could be an infinite numbers of other ways of tuning a universe. There should at least be three or four. I thought Heaven and Hell were supposed to be all-spirit. All souls, no bodies, thus no physical laws. Well, there must be some kind of existence. And that existence must have some kind of natural laws embedded, otherwise it would be just a mess and chaos. It's the limitations of the laws of physics that enables us to have a body, motion, mind, sight, etc. If all is just a huge mishmash, then what is what? No rules of anything? Even for a spirit there would have to be a form of limitations to the existence, and those limitations would follow set rules (or laws). That world would be considered the new "natural" world. And as such, it would in Heaven be a "more perfect" set of "natural laws" than here. So this place is then not so perfect. Just think about this, are you right now, in this moment when you read this, thinking about all possible things that anyone could ever think about for eternity? No, you're probably not. Your mind is focused on one or few thoughts at a time, which is key to be able to experience a present and being able to think thoughts where A leads to B which leads to C and so on. If you would be thinking all possible thoughts at once, which thought is the one you would act upon? Limitations and the finite components of nature is what makes life possible, and I'm quite certain this would apply even to a spiritual existence. I think I would have to agree with Phanta here. If a spiritual world is not physical, then it would not have to obey physical laws. Why could there not be supernatural laws to which heaven and hell would be subject to? I mean, if it is not a natural world, then it seems that natural laws would not apply. What do you think? LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Christian apologists try to get around these problems by claiming God exists outside the universe and so the same laws and logic of this universe don't apply to God. But if you can't use the laws and logic of this universe to disprove the existence of God, then you can't use the laws and logic of this universe to prove the existence of God either. You can only be agnostic about the existence of God and any further knowledge claim about God is based on faith and not proof. But Christian apologists want it both ways where God is immune to any logic of this universe that makes its existence difficult while at the same time using the logic of this universe to prove its existence. I don't know of any Christian apologists that argue that logic is not part of God's nature. In fact, I and other apologists argue that logic does not make sense if it is not grounded in God's nature. People do try to use laws of logic to both give evidence for God's existence and to give evidence to prove God doesn't exist, but I've never heard a Christian philosopher or apologist say that using logic is unjustified in that case. If you know of that happening, please point me to that person or his or her arguments. However, I would agree that it is more logical to be an agnostic than an atheist as one cannot prove conclusively that God doesn't exist or that arguments for God's existence are necessarily false, therefore, I believe the atheist position cannot be held from an evidential viewpoint; however, a person could logically remain agnostic. So again, God is not outside of logic, but, I believe, the very grounding of logic. God could not, for example, make a married bachelor or a square circle as that would violate his nature. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts