Posted by Frosty (220.127.116.11) on April 18, 2004 at 09:46:24:
I notice below another Pangea/AAA tit-for-tat on this word 'empirical'.
Again, AAA seems to not understand what is meant by the term, and Pangea seems not to understand that 'truth' does not have to be 'empirical' in order to be 'truth'.
Well listen both of you. Most of the truth we accept is done so on 'circumstantial' evidence.
This includes truth claims about religion, truth claims about fossils (I mean Pangea, we haven't actually SEEN what kind of flesh surrounded the vast majority of those bones now have we?), and truth claims about most crimes.
Therefore, AAA, you have nothing 'empirical' to offer concerning God or creation.
Pangea, you have evidently decided 'religion' is the one area you will accept nothing as 'truth' that can't be empirically tested (although it only seems fair to ask you to play by the same rule in every other area as well).
I've told you both, you are wasting your time discussing these issues so long as Pangea will not give credence to circumstantial evidence.
Post a Followup