1,161
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: +
→I think not
:::Why is it shocking? I haven't said at all that the science is wrong, I'm just pointing out some philosophical things. Is that insulting? As far as the God argument, there is a difference between ''denying'' God, and being ''convinced'' that He doesn't exist. All I'm saying is that it is impossible to be ''convinced''. Convinced means you can prove that God does not exist, denying means that you don't believe He exists, whether He does or not. You have got the burden of proof my friend. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Why is it shocking? I haven't said at all that the science is wrong, I'm just pointing out some philosophical things. Is that insulting? As far as the God argument, there is a difference between ''denying'' God, and being ''convinced'' that He doesn't exist. All I'm saying is that it is impossible to be ''convinced''. Convinced means you can prove that God does not exist, denying means that you don't believe He exists, whether He does or not. You have got the burden of proof my friend. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I guess to put it in other terms, although there are arguments against it, ''Theistic Evolutionism'' is the bare minimum option. I'm not the only one that thinks these things. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)