🚀 go-pugleaf

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

> Actually, most core doctrine is taken on faith.  There ain't no
> way to determine the 'truth' of faith.  It's 'true' until the 
> last adherent dies, after which may be debate.

You can believe in something that can be proven wrong. What's the point?

> By using science or logic you can do no such thing.  'God' is
> not required to be consistent, nor even logical.  You cannot 
> falsify a concept taken on faith.      

If you abandon logic you can `proof' anything. That's useless. If
religious people claim that their deity can interact with reality
in a non-trivial matter (i.e. staying within the limits of the
uncertaincy principle), it can be proven wrong.

> Why do certain people have such difficulty with the proposition
> that there are domains which 'science' and 'logic' can never reach?

Why should there be such area's? 3000 years ago people explained
lightning with Donar, the god of lightning. Now we know it's
electricity. Give me one (1) goog reason why this shouldn't happen
with anything.
-- 
********************************************************** 
* J.C.A. Wevers                *   The only nature of    * 
* johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *   reality is physics.   * 
**********************************************************