[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2)I have two neighbours that may or may not have a cat. You are allowed to spend a day in each house searching for clues. By your 'reasoning' you would have no justification to decide that the lack of evidence in a house is a indicator of 'lack of cat', even if not total.


[/ QUOTE ]

My comments are in the context of: if God then what does he expect? That is the discussion.

Regarding the power of reason, my only point here is that one cannot reason there is no God. This is not to say that one can/can’t reason there is God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really really like the whole "lack of cat" scenario. So if you use Believer logic, some believers will be convinced the house MUST have a cat, others will say its a dog, and still others will say there must be a monkey. Each will be convinced they know which animal there is and YOU cannot disprove that said animal is hiding somewhere in the house.

-g

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure your point, gorv. I have already stated that luckyme has misinterpreted what I said. (Or I wasn't clear to begin with.) Yeah, looking for the cat is a great idea. I just don't see the relevance.

Besides, those who read T. S. Elliot are certainly going to have a better handle on how to look for the cat and are better apt to see any clues if there is indeed a friggin’ cat in the house than those who don’t.