Re: An atheist professor & his student

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:53:02 +0100, "DaveD"
<davedn1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Descartes considered a range of options to explain his apparent
existence, 
>deconstructing his perceptions of reality step by step, proposing and 
>eliminating alternatives to prove he was real in his own right rather
than 
>someone else's idea or artifact, until he ended up with "cogito ergo
sum": I 
>think therefore I am.
>
>You need to something more along those lines to prove god's existence:
the 
>first statement above "because there MUST be..." is merely an unsup****ted

>assertion. You presumably believe it's true because you can't conceive of
an 
>alternative, but that doesn't prove it at all.
>
>DaveD 

That's how Louis works.  He says things must be by pure definition,
then ducks anything that proves him wrong.  And throws our own
complaints back in our faces.

The truth is, there is no absolute reason for the universe to have
been created by god.  There is also no absolute reason to believe the
universe wasn't created by god.  All we know is, seemingly 13.7
Billion years ago, an alleged Big Bang created the universe.  Who or
what or why such an even transpired is unknown.

It's like me handing you a shoe, and asking you to describe the little
kid in the sweatshop forced to create it.  His/Her gender, name,
looks, the clothes worn at the time, etc.  You can't do it.  I don't
even have proof a kid in a sweatshop made it.  Maybe it was a legit
factory worker.  A kid must have made it is not proof.  That is a
generally accepted opinion that is probably correct.  But no proof
exists but heresay.  My insistence that there can be no other
explanation, and insisting my ponderings are legit proof is not
undeniable proof.  It is not evidence.  Even if in the end I'm right,
I have failed to prove that rightness just by saying Trust me.  I know
better.  I thought it out fully and determined that only a sweatshop
kid could have made it.  The very fact there is a shoe necessitates a
sweatshop kid having made it.

One random person's word is not proof, no matter his convictions.  And
if he is right, good for him.  Too bad he had no proof to back it up.
No proof at all.  Proof being testable and retestable with the same
exact outcome each time.