> "Simon Gardner" <email@example.com[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote:
>> Jeffrey Goldberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> I believe that there is no Loch Ness monster, but I also
>>>acknowledge that there is the remote possibily that I could be wrong.
>>>Likewise, I believe that there is no God, but I acknowledge that there
>>>is the remote possibility that I could be wrong.
>> You really do have a problem, don't you? The Loch Ness Monster is just
>> about plausible. The god[s] thing is completely ludicrous.
> Actually, I believe this is the more truly sceptical approach in
> that the lack of data about the existence of a god makes it
> impossible to express a total disbelief.
The problem with this approach is that an infinite number of things can be
argued to be (possibly) existent. You can never prove the inexistence of
the inexistent because it's inexistent. If you were to analyse these
assertions logically, you'd probably get stuck in a recursion.
> Lets face it, some very serious scientists believe in the
> existence of multiple universes. Since they, necessarily,
> must occupy some undetectable, extra-universal, space
> then why not God also?
But a point can be made here to say that, just as another so-called universe
is isolated and undetectable, so is God. However, religion speaks of a God
that is live, involved, and in control of everything.
Roy S. Schestowitz