But isn't what Deb actually believes irrelevant? Asking you to prove an
assertion does not imply any particular belief on her part one way or the
other. If I'm marking an essay in which a student claims that "the modern
nation-state is no longer capable of protecting its citizens as it once
did," and I want them to give me reasons why they're making that claim, it
doesn't mean that I disagree with them. It means that it's not accepted
practice when making an argument to put forward a point and not justify it.
>If your big challenge to me is to prove something ( 4 ) that is obvious,
>commonplace, massively documented and everyday, and, to which the _only
>alternative_ is something totally in the face of the _entire_ experience
>both scientifcally and commonplace-ly of the world, I would ask that before
>I undertake that cruelly futile exercise (presumably involving directing
>you to a handful of particular books, museums etc), I would ask that you
>undertake the equally futile exercise of proving something to me ( 1 ) that
>is obvious, commonplace, massively documented and everyday, and, to which
>the _only alternative_ is something totally in the face of the entire
>experience both scientifcally and commonplace-ly of the world. So go
>ahead, prove to me (1) and I'll prove to you (4).
JP, if you're unwilling (or unable) to provide the standards upon which
you're basing your arguments and that Greg and Deb keep asking you to
elucidate, just say so and this thread can die a natural death, as it
doesn't seem to be going anywhere but around in circles. The only change
I've noticed so far has been in the subject line.
Even saying something as simple as, "I know there's no god because if there
was a god I'd have bumped into him at Tower records, but I haven't, so there
is no god," would advance the debate further than your repeated claim that
"it's so obvious there's no need to prove it!" At least then you'd be
providing a basis from which others on the list could evaluate your claim.
If your opinion is so massively subscribed to by the general populace and
borne out by everyday experiences, then it should be easy to prove, but
you've been continually and annoyingly resistant to do so. I'm sure the
theory of relativity was obvious to Einstein after he discovered it, but
that didn't discount his need to actually _prove_ it to other people.
And while there may be some things which _are_ so commonly known that they
don't need to be proved any longer, I doubt that the non-existence of a
god-like being is one of them.
____________________________________________________________________________
osadchuk@uvic.ca http://www.xtc.net/~osadchuk/
After being human for a few days, it feels good to be a floor again. We
should all be floors once in our lives. If only to know what it feels like
to look up to a ceiling. Two days later she's here again. The walls told
him that she comes once or twice a week. Her feet have been washed in
lilac-scented soap.
____________________________________________________________________________