tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post5953376564283195560..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: Ah, the Rich Irony of It All!gcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-8110681618413176212013-09-27T18:43:23.913-04:002013-09-27T18:43:23.913-04:00So it turns out Bill was trolling. So it turns out Bill was trolling. gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-49741728032107441052013-09-24T07:03:01.456-04:002013-09-24T07:03:01.456-04:00Siarlys, see Descartes.Siarlys, see Descartes.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-85095864732492930292013-09-24T07:02:07.676-04:002013-09-24T07:02:07.676-04:00Well, sklien, that is one amongst many such argume...Well, sklien, that is one amongst many such arguments. In fact, we have a massive tradition of reasoned argumentation for the existence of God.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-3931016664958952502013-09-24T05:10:13.590-04:002013-09-24T05:10:13.590-04:00I guess the argument Gene is refering to is sketch...I guess the argument Gene is refering to is sketched here:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argumentskylienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08160738385436843080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-63029264751687065062013-09-24T00:48:02.786-04:002013-09-24T00:48:02.786-04:00I hardly new, but how'sabout this?
Nondecreas...I hardly new, but how'sabout this?<br /><br />Nondecreasing, and bound above,<br />The sequence must converge, my love.<br /><br />No, in all seriousness, you know, math stuff...<br />Wabulonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16838347174718251102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-91385106142850795042013-09-23T23:09:23.652-04:002013-09-23T23:09:23.652-04:00Woland is as wrong as your analogy. To say "I...Woland is as wrong as your analogy. To say "I don't accept pink things as evidence," when we all know that some things ARE pink, is to make an artificial and wishful distinction. When it comes to metaphysical questions, like "Is there a God who made all that is, seen and unseen, the first, the last, who was and is and ever shall be... I can't establish that the answer is YES nearly as easily as I can establish that there ARE pink things.<br /><br />That's why we walk by faith and not by sight. The fallacy in Woland's argument is that he can't prove a negative. He can't prove from within the physical universe that there is nothing outside of that universe. However, he is entitled to set aside a consideration that cannot be proven affirmatively. He just has no basis to ridicule those of us who sense there IS something out there.Siarlys Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15083839117838391267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-32995290129456125342013-09-23T18:43:26.720-04:002013-09-23T18:43:26.720-04:00Read Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Abelar...Read Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Abelard, Averroes, Avicenna, Maimonides, Aquinas, Leibniz, Berkeley, etc.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-10658738162390954552013-09-23T16:52:41.070-04:002013-09-23T16:52:41.070-04:00"That is just the sort of evidence we have fo..."That is just the sort of evidence we have for God"<br /><br />I'm not at all trolling, but what is that evidence or where can I read a presentation of it?Bill Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07318967363309095142noreply@blogger.com