Posted by Boje on March 04, 1999 at 19:20:26:
In Reply to: Further clarification posted by Xavier on March 03, 1999 at 09:09:18:
Xavier:
I know that you have not said those exact words; I have read all of your posts, and I remember most of what you said in them. I think that I can reasonably draw those conclusions from your posts. They are logical extensions of your statements. You have said that you prefer proof over faith. Proof requires utilization of mathematics; mathematics demands acceptance of the concept of infinity - on faith, no less.
Further, I realize that you have recently altered your stance from one of atheism to agnosticism. I have also read rcpman’s treatise on the difference between the two. Yet both of you seem to have no problem with using the two terms interchangeably. I guess since I claim to be neither, I don’t have that same freedom? ( I guess it’s kind of like African/Americans and the "n" word, huh?)
The point being: you both consistently deride faith as a means of knowing anything or making meaningful statements about reality, while the very tool which you use to define reality is replete with premises which must be taken on faith. If you can accept the existence of infinite quantities in nature, then why do you discount even the possibility of applying the concept to evidence of the existence of God? You may not be saying that you know for certain that God doesn’t exist, but neither are you attempting to consider the possibility that He does.
Boje