From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 11:32:56 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE6337B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:32:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A4243E4A for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:32:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout06.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H21007944URZ6@mtaout06.icomcast.net> for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Fri, 06 Sep 2002 14:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 14:32:51 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <20020903144201.Q66978-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Dave Hayes , Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <0D38D150-C1C7-11D6-A71E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tuesday, September 3, 2002, at 05:57 PM, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >>>> What about those questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? >>> >>> What questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? >> >> "Is there a God?" "Why are we here?" "What is the one difference >> between a sacred being and an evil being?" > > Some questions are proven from the impossibility of the contrary. If > a particular worldview does not provide the preconditions of > rationality, > it should be rejected. For example, the fact that naturalism > undermines > the ability to know whether one's views are true or false eliminates > naturalism as a viable worldview. In fact, if naturalism is false its > opposite, supernaturalism must be true. > > Moreover, not just any supernaturalism will do. It must provide the > preconditions for rationality, ethics, science, human dignity, freedom, > intellectual disagreements, etc. Basically, its not that "God" cannot > be rationally proven as much as the fact that without God, nothing > could > be proven at all. Hence, God is proven from the impossibility of the > contrary. It is unreasonable to reject that which is the foundation > for everything else. > The proof or disproof of God is impossible because the question is inherently one not of science but of faith. If there is a God no human mind could fully comprehend him/her/it. If no human can comprehend God then how can God be proven? Some look at a tree and say that is the proof of God, some loo kat the tree and say that is just a part of the ecosystem. God and the proof of such a being is a very personal subject, and no one can prove it either way, one can simply decide on their own. --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message