Re: The Problem with Atheism
Reply #630 –
I have some questions about Oakdale's statement:
Precisely what is deficient? Are definitions deficient? Are proofs deficient? Deficient in what sense? For what purposes? And what would be the better alternative that would not be deficient?
So, I'd say Oakdale's statement itself is deficient. It lacks the definitional clarity necessary to determine if one could agree or disagree with it.
"A unicorn is a horse with a single horn situated slightly above and between its eyes" pretty much defines the creature most of us "recognize"… In what way does that make that creature real, extant and yummy?
ersi, saying such-and-such doesn't make it so. Why do you find this controversial? Might it be because you prefer word-games to science or logic?
There is a certain (particular) sense in which God is a required concept for the existence of anything… But that "God" has no necessary connection to any contemporary religion. Sect and di-sect…, my friend!