s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
How does one "reject" anything that one does not "accept" (at "true/truth") at the outset?
You are welcome to claim that an invisble pink elephant is sitting comfortably in my den's barcolounger at this very moment.
Your claim might even be true.
But is such a claim worthy of rational acceptance beyond a reasonable doubt?
Is it unreasonable to conclude that such an extraordinary and (erstwhile inevidence) claimed invisible elephant: absent any visible droppings, crushed furniture, or residually wafting peanut breath; is in fact a valid claim to be (somehow/otherwise) thusly and circumspectly irrationally denied?
There is more evidence of gravity, than there is of any omniscient deity.
I "know" that gravity exists (despite it's "invisbilility"), not only because I can see and perceive it's existence; but also within the confident knowledge that I can test and measure the observable effects of gravity. To deny the existence of gravity within these parameters would be irrational.
Can a claimant of a veritable (ongoing) "existence" of Christ satisfy these simple burdens of rational acceptability?
What part of human reason dictates that faith-based claims are to be morefact credible/acceptable than conclusions predicated upon testable, measurable, and independantly observable ?
May our lord Zeus spare His judgmental wrath from those that doubt His existence...
[Somehow, my lack of faith in any claims of a veritable Santa Claus have yet to result in any punative fire-stoking coals of impious unrepentance in my stocking...go figure.]
You are welcome to claim that an invisble pink elephant is sitting comfortably in my den's barcolounger at this very moment.
Your claim might even be true.
But is such a claim worthy of rational acceptance beyond a reasonable doubt?
Is it unreasonable to conclude that such an extraordinary and (erstwhile inevidence) claimed invisible elephant: absent any visible droppings, crushed furniture, or residually wafting peanut breath; is in fact a valid claim to be (somehow/otherwise) thusly and circumspectly irrationally denied?
There is more evidence of gravity, than there is of any omniscient deity.
I "know" that gravity exists (despite it's "invisbilility"), not only because I can see and perceive it's existence; but also within the confident knowledge that I can test and measure the observable effects of gravity. To deny the existence of gravity within these parameters would be irrational.
Can a claimant of a veritable (ongoing) "existence" of Christ satisfy these simple burdens of rational acceptability?
What part of human reason dictates that faith-based claims are to be morefact credible/acceptable than conclusions predicated upon testable, measurable, and independantly observable ?
May our lord Zeus spare His judgmental wrath from those that doubt His existence...
[Somehow, my lack of faith in any claims of a veritable Santa Claus have yet to result in any punative fire-stoking coals of impious unrepentance in my stocking...go figure.]