Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:18:03 -0800, Hatter wrote:

> SO, a thinly disguised argument from ignorance. Is that the best you
> have?

I am unfamilar with argument from ignorance.  I have made no argument at
all; rather, I challenge your invalid logic. 

> 
> If you cannot define it, then it is a flight of fancy. A void.

Many things exist that I cannot define, but which are very real.  The
Super Hadron Collider comes to mind.

> 
> You see, people make crap up. A basic rule of human behavior

You see, people re****t on things they have seen.  A basic rule of human
behavior is to re****t on things that seem extraordinary or unusual.

I can do pop psychology too :-)


> 
> Logic, evidence, proof.
> 
> Notice all three are missing from the argument for God.
> 

And from your argument *against* God.  It just isn't there.  That is my
point.  You cannot use these elements to prove, or disprove, God.  Wrong
"domain".   Science cannot prove the "Higgs particle" without a Super
Hadron Collider, and maybe not even then, but it *is* at least in the same
domain.


> Hatter