Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?

Michael wrote:

> 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.

YOU WANNA GOD?   YOU PROVE IT IS THERE.    IF YOU CANNOT DO
THAT.............

E N D     OF    S T O R Y

The number of things that I could claim do not exist are infinite
so only a desperate child would expect anyone to even attempt it.

YOU are claiming the god so YOU prove it is there,
otherwise, go away ...............you bore people

They should call you The Mad Hatter

> "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