by Grandpa on Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:02 pm
I'll combine a few answers here, to your, ahem, bananafide
from JAK:
Surely if you want to vote for the third of fourth option you have to vote for the second option too?
but Mr Bean replies in the affirmative, stating rightly that it is indeed not bananas thatI was talking about! (i.e.the answer to the 'which god' question is simply the conception of god that the voter happens to hold)
And this is an interesting point:
(again from JAK...)
This 'thred' has changed interestingly, from Christian bashing to debates on whether religions and beliefs in general are good or bad, to talking about infinite bananas.
But, and I say verily unto you, here is not the debate whether or not religion is a good or bad thing, it is precisely that "Can we prove the existence of god?" and if, as Rob implies, there can be no proof of existance of any deity, then the argument is most certainly not defunct, rather it will lead us to more and more questions. The next it begs of us is to answer "Is religion justified?"
Do I need explain? Maybe (and maybe not) and I shall. If no god can be proven (which we assume as true/valid or whatever) then is religion, esp. in this case Christianity, challenged? If Christianity is challenged, is not also the specific belief in a god of those who follow it?
You see, the debate is not implicitly about religion, as we can have religion without this god, but it is about the nature and validity of god as personified, idealised and revered entity in such a way as Christianity does.
Answer on a postcard to ''this thread'' at ''this webseite'' please!
We are gentlemen that neither in our hearts nor outward eyes envy the great nor shall the low despise.