Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00314)

On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 17:16:23 EST WLR7D@aol.com wrote:

> I have not defined words such as proof, reason, logic, evidence and the like
> because I am not interested in a debate on semantics.
> If I ask someone for proof or evidence, I am happy for them to provide it in
> whatever form they choose.  This gives them the option of not being hamstrung
> by my definitions.  They can create their own.  I just would like to know on
> what basis they make whatever assertion they make.
Then ask for evidence or the basis, not for proof. For
mathematicians and physicists on this list, the word proof
means something very different from the word evidence.
> I'd also just like to see people say something of substance regarding
> theosophy.  Make some assertions, some claims, something other than playing
> cute with words. (Has Clinton infected theosophists with the what does is
> mean bug?)  How bout something that can be falsified, if you will, Grigor.
It is much more difficult to prove something is Truth, than
it is to show that it is likely. And talking about
theosophy even showing something is likely is usually
impossible, in my oppinion. All one can do is say: this is
a possible explanation for those and those facts.
reincarnation and the discussion on that topic on this list
are a good case in point.

Katinka

----------------------
NHL Leeuwarden
hesse600@tem.nhl.nl