You are right that no atheist can prove that God is not. Romeo and Juliet do
not know Shakespeare, how can they prove or disprove his existence? All
arguments are plausibility arguments. Science is just one way of knowing
and by no means the only way. Only the physical is the purview of science,
those things that can be measured by mechanical, electrical, etc. devices.
Man is a "device" that can know more than the physical. Thanks for your
From: Jim Beardsley <email@example.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: atheism vs theism
>[Forgive me if my comments are over-simplified.. new here, and
>not degreed, but I am a humble arm-chair science student,
>philosopher, and Christian.. reply off the list if more
>Steve's comments also struck me:
>--- Steve Petermann <SteveGP@email.msn.com> wrote:
>> ...as fundamentalists. They require a high degree of
>> for belief (must have empirical evidence) and they view their
>> revelatory resource (typically science) as absolute and
>> sufficient. ...
>Firstly, if an atheist / fundamentalist "requires a high degree
>of certainty for belief", is it TRULY impossible for him to
>believe in things he does not yet KNOW? (No asteroids EXIST
>until/unless they are SEEN? Falling trees make no SOUND
>until/unless they are HEARD?) Even if he can believe in things
>he does not yet know, how could his DIS-belief in things that he
>CANNOT "know" prove they don't exist? (Okay, no atheist would
>let himself fall into that trap, right? ..or is that flawed?)
>Even if "truth" (scientific or not) must be considered somewhat
>relative and subjective (many religions, multiple geometry
>theories, Q.M., etc), isn't it obvious humanity must
>collectively "know" very little of this "truth" so far? Then how
>can our LIMITED knowledge be trusted to DEDUCE anything about
>what we don't yet know? Are "most" atheists too proud to deny
>this obvious ignorance they are flaunting? (Perhaps I simply
>need some reading suggestions..)
>Science has its implied limits, am I right? By the method's own
>definition, it must eternally attempt to disprove itself, or at
>least to discern the limits of its own reach. (..still valid?)
>Then how could any atheist be foolish enough to rely on science
>or any other "reveal-ant" process to prove his opinion?
>Science is incredible, powerful, and fun (for us), BUT unless it
>can someday revolutionize ITSELF (where can I find such a
>discussion?), it seems to me that it can never and neither be
>omniscient nor omnipotent. In fact, the only fact I've imagined
>so far which science has proven repeatedly, is how weak and
>easily "threatened" humanity's collective Faith may always be.
>..sure keeps ME humble.
>I rarely get into debates (yet), and I'm not qualified to grade
>my own thinking, so I don't know how well that would stand up to
>a formidable opponent (nor a critical audience). I welcome your
>Thank you, love this list and your dialogues,
>Christian father, IT laborer, unactualized academic
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 22 2000 - 14:40:04 EDT