Personally I can never quite understand the concession by atheists like Richard Dawkins that they cannot prove that God does not exist. Stated in that fashion, it sounds like there is some very clear definition of who or what God is, whereas in reality, even within Western theism, there are many different conceptions of who the guy known as God is like, what he/she/it has or hasnt done, does or doesnt do. Thats not to mention all the other beings known as gods. Do we have to call ourselves agnostics if we cant disprove Zeus, Kali, the Jade Emperor, Shango and all the rest? Do we have to disprove every one of those conceptions, every one of those fictitious beings? It is in fact impossible to disprove any one of them, since they are all invisible and undetectable, and they all work in mysterious ways we cant investigate. So why define oneself in relation to ones inability to perform an impossible task?
Posted on: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 22:40:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015