>
> George Dance wrote:
>> DarkAngel wrote:
>>> George Dance wrote:
>>>> Not true: if you want to argue for the existence of faeries, Flying
>>>> Linguini Monsters or Invisible Punk Unicorns (rather than Invisible
>>>> Pink Unicorns, which is contradictory),
>>>
>>> No more contradiction than an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent
>>> God.
>>
>> Impossibility is a good reason to not believe in something. OTOH, a
>> God that's merely magniscient, or magnipotent, or magnibenevolent ...?
>
> How about I define God as a toaster? That's called shifting the
> goalposts.
It isnt. It's perfectly valid. Theology, as a philosopher once said, is
intellectual tennis without a net. Anything goes, since it is not
evidence-based. I for one think that god is a giant cheeseburger.
>>>> I'm more than willing to listen to you with an open mind.
>>>
>>> Okay, how about flat earthism, creationism and Scientology?
>>>
>> Not the first two, as there's evidence - even perceptual evidence, in
>> the first case.
>
> I notice that you gave Scientology a free pass. Interesting. How bout
> homeopathy, astrology, alien abductions?
>
>> How about: strings, the Higgs boson, or other universes?
>
> My understanding is that none of those theories currently make
> falsifiable predictions. I may be out of date.
>
> If they do make falsifiable predictions, then we can test them out and
> see whether they're true or not. If they don't, then the rational
> position is not to be 'agnostic' about them. It's to reject them as
> useless. Like God, which is defined by the believers as unfalsifiable
> concept.
>
Cool.
regards
Milan
