tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post354337092590994662..comments2024-03-28T00:48:19.961-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: What do you put in place of science to prove theology?:Tillich, Phenomenology and Theolgoical MethodJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-272300828810876312011-03-07T14:43:51.914-08:002011-03-07T14:43:51.914-08:00Good point about the M scale accept I do use it in...Good point about the M scale accept I do use it in backing God arguments. Not that I think it directly proves the existence of God, but it proves a certain link in the argument.<br /><br />These guys who don't understand argument don't understand why that's not a violation of some form of logic.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-31232208936296223912011-03-07T14:42:39.526-08:002011-03-07T14:42:39.526-08:00Maybe you should replace it with Dawkins comment o...Maybe you should replace it with Dawkins comment on Leprachonology. He really is out of his depth on philosophy<br /><br /><b>that would be a bit more appropriate to use a published figure rather than just allude to a hundred unknown posters, but same thing really.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-84596844302749414322011-03-07T14:33:03.154-08:002011-03-07T14:33:03.154-08:00Also, I just thought of something on the M scale. ...Also, I just thought of something on the M scale. Perhaps it might be better to say it is empirical evidence "not necessarily for God" but rather a spiritual dimension to reality. That may evoke less hostile reactions. Of course there will be the occasional asshole but I think you get my point.Mileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07026834728177934920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-63127941648623606632011-03-07T13:57:57.467-08:002011-03-07T13:57:57.467-08:00I don't have to read the theology because I kn...I don't have to read the theology because I know it's stupid." <br /><br />Maybe you should replace it with Dawkins comment on Leprachonology. He really is out of his depth on philosophyMileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07026834728177934920noreply@blogger.com