More common sense from the pen of Farrell Till.
From the Errancy Discussion list, 4-17-97:
TILL
Please get it right, Walt. I do not "maintain" that the universe is
eternal. I believe that matter itself is eternal and that this is a belief
that is more consistent with reality than the various theistic options.
(snip)
(DAVE 4/7) Farrell: Matter is self-existent? Prove it.
TILL
Dave, God is self-existent? Prove it.
(DAVE 4/16) Farrell: Ah yes, good proof. I guess I can play this
game too - no, YOU prove it. Give me one LOGICAL or even
REASONABLE piece of evidence to show that matter is self-
existent. If there isn't one, then why do you even entertain
the idea?
TILL
There is a big difference here, Dave. You are asking me to prove
the self-existence of something that we both know exists, while
asking me NOT to demand that you prove the self-existence of
something that cannot even be proven to exist. You can't see
the difference? Just who has the greater burden of proof here?
Farrell Till
From the Errancy Discussion list, 4-17-97:
TILL
Please get it right, Walt. I do not "maintain" that the universe is
eternal. I believe that matter itself is eternal and that this is a belief
that is more consistent with reality than the various theistic options.
(snip)
(DAVE 4/7) Farrell: Matter is self-existent? Prove it.
TILL
Dave, God is self-existent? Prove it.
(DAVE 4/16) Farrell: Ah yes, good proof. I guess I can play this
game too - no, YOU prove it. Give me one LOGICAL or even
REASONABLE piece of evidence to show that matter is self-
existent. If there isn't one, then why do you even entertain
the idea?
TILL
There is a big difference here, Dave. You are asking me to prove
the self-existence of something that we both know exists, while
asking me NOT to demand that you prove the self-existence of
something that cannot even be proven to exist. You can't see
the difference? Just who has the greater burden of proof here?
Farrell Till
