18 Jun 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat's the second time in successive posts that you're ignoring what I'm actually saying. Maybe you're confusing me with some stereotype you have in mind.
My point is likelihood. The sky is not going to crash down. It'd go against our entire understanding of physics, as well as everything we know from our own experiences. The chances of you train derailing on your way to work are much, much higher (especially in the UK), yet I doubt you give that a second thought, so why look up when someone says "the ...[text shortened]... ng which makes no logical sense" premise, remind me why I should consult your bible again?
I did not ask you to consult the Bible. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Of course the "sky" falling is logically impossible, but something falling from the sky is not and, as you say, the cost of confirming that is low enough.
20 Jun 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou didn't ask me to consult the bible. T'is true. I wonder though, what other route you would suggest that I "seriously think about it"?
That's the second time in successive posts that you're ignoring what I'm [b]actually saying. Maybe you're confusing me with some stereotype you have in mind.
I did not ask you to consult the Bible. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Of course the "sky" falling is logically impossible, but something falling from the sky is not and, as you say, the cost of confirming that is low enough.[/b]
20 Jun 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzI mean, give the whole spirituality/religion thing a serious think. Examine the assumptions of your current metaphysics (which, I suppose, is some kind of scientific materialism); take a look at the philosophy of science and its underlying assumptions. Read some modern philosophers of religion like Swinburne or Plantinga.
You didn't ask me to consult the bible. T'is true. I wonder though, what other route you would suggest that I "seriously think about it"?