"It is interesting that Flew dismisses every argument and supposed proof for God's existence except the scientific one."
- And since he doesn't have a scientific one, the supposed evidence is open to personal interpretation. Back to square one. (I've never heard the word 'evidentialist' before - that's a handy piece of rhetoric).
______________________
There are profound things in this universe that are commonly refered to as holy or divine, which can be known but which cannot be expressed in scientific form. They are real, yet cannot be touched. An athiest knows these things just as a theist does, yet they argue endlessly about what they are and from whence they come.
I've just finished listening to Bach's St. Matthew Passion. I don't feel inclined to ask what that 'beauty' is, why it should be so, etc. etc. That it is, is sufficient. Science will never provide a comprehensive answer because it cannot 'feel' the spiritual. Is it evidence for God? The question is meaningless to me. It is what it is.
Last edited by redewenur; 05/13/07 06:04 AM.
