I agree a lot with this response. I think a lot of other people agree with it too. I'd even venture that Steve would agree with it. I mean, it is pretty typical for a skeptic to say something along the lines of "show me X and then I'll believe." You show them X and then they say: "Wait a minute, there is a chance that Y or Z could've effected the outcome. That's still not good enough."
Unfortunately, now that we know this is true, we are agreeing to the fact that even showing "proof" of the type that Divi requested would still leave him an out. Therefore, it would not violate his free will as Steve said it would.
So, is this REALLY violating his free will? I'll admit, I would feel condescended to if I asked an honest to goodness question and I got back something like this.
I think it would be much more authentic to say "Divi, I could provide you proof, but my past experiences have shown me that providing proof to skeptics isn't a wise investment of my time. Nothing tends to convince someone and they just continually up the requirement for belief. Perhaps you're an exception but I can't always take that gamble as it comes up."
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24evita  It is amazing, but not at all surprising that many of us still need "proof" for various things. As good as science is and as much as it can prove, it cannot prove the many fundamental and basic things that govern the spiritual universe.
|