__/ [ Kelsey Bjarnason ] on Wednesday 15 March 2006 15:54 \__
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:12:56 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> another planet and whose sole aim is to disprove it. This reminds me of
>> the requirement from an atheist to prove that there exists no God
>> (disprove the existence of something is impossible, let alone prove the
>> inexistence of something).
> Two points:
> 1) You're not seriously suggesting that all atheists maintain there are
> no, and/or cannot be, gods, are you? As an atheist, I find this notion
> somewhat amusing.
An atheist does not need to disprove the existence of anything? There is
nothing to begin with, so why bother?
I have read this discussion before (defining atheism) in the atheistic
newsgroups, but I can't recall it precisely. It's better in textual form
that is unambiguous and accurate.
> 2) Proving the non-existence of something can, in fact, be trivial,
> depending upon what exactly is involved. The old saw about "Can God make
> a rock so big He can't lift it", for example, while being somewhat long in
> the tooth, is quite sufficient to destroy, absolutely and entirely, any
> silly-ass notion of an omnipotent deity - though it doesn't rule out
> more limited versions.
I never thought about it in such terms. To me, even thinking about method for
falsifying an existence is an utter waste of time. To each his/her own; Not
Roy S. Schestowitz | chmod a-r *.mbox
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:05pm up 7 days 8:42, 7 users, load average: 0.12, 0.46, 0.54
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project