Quote:
Originally Posted by kstarnes
This belief can certainly be called spiritual. It is not Stuart's or my or any else's obligation to disprove your extraordinary claims, it is your obligation to prove them or simply admit your belief is based upon "faith".
|
Yes indeed. Though I didn't state that explicitly in this thread -- my belief is indeed based upon faith. It has to be. My definition of faith is simple: it is the belief in something which cannot be seen, cannot be scientifically proven, or cannot be physically explained.
Quote:
|
You cannot disprove the Great Teapot(s), but that does not prove Their existence.
|
However, your logic also dictates this: you cannot scientifically prove that God exists, but that does not prove the non-existence of God.
And thus we reach an impass where it is simply best to agree to disagree on such matters.
Quote:
|
And, science has a much better track record of explaining stuff than any of the world's religions.
|
Sure -- since most of the "stuff" the science can explain is part of the physical realm.
Quote:
|
P.S.: I guess it was only a matter of time before this parallel of the "God" thread materialized.
|
That's cause they both operate in the same realm -- not unlike two opposing chess pieces on the same checkered board...
It's been a good discussion thus far...
-Zoltan.