0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The fact that you could get a blind man to accept that there is such a thing as light is not strictly scientific proof. OK you could get someone to tell him what he's doing as Another Someone sugests, but that is just as valid a proof of mindreading as it is of the existence of light.
In the style of many theological arguments.The properties of "mindreading" are those properties that, in the experiment detailed above, would make it indistinguishable from light but in some other ways (only revealed to the chosen ones) differ.Anyway, as we agreed, the real point is that science never really proves anything- it just disproves as many alternatives as it can. Since the properties of "God", like those of mindreading, can be changed arbitrarily, "God" can never be disproved. Even where the properties of "God" are logically impossible, logic is deemed to be at fault.For example "God" is, more or less by definition, omnipotent- He can do anything; that's what makes Him "God". OK, can He set Himself a task which He cannot achieve?If not then He's clearly not omnipotent. If He can set such a task then, since He can't achieve it He's not omnipotent. Omnipotence is a paradox, but that doesn't bother some people.