Summations Only

Uh, no. Rousseau was born in 1712. He can't possibly have been "one of the most respected minds of the Renaissance" any more than I can be "one of the most respected minds of the Industrial Revolution". Wrong century. Where did he say that? Could you give a reference? Only an internet search suggests that no-one has ever said that, least of all Rousseau.You seem to be just making stuff up.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that I have to believe everything he says. Nietzsche was a pretty smart German, but I don't have to become an atheist just 'cos he said so. I'd have to look at his actual arguments, wouldn't I? Well, good luck with that, 'cos I can't find that anyone said exactly that, ever.If your religion is true, then wouldn't you be able to support its truth by saying true things? Instead, your very first argument, the one that you wanted to put first when you started posting on this thread, was demonstrably false. Doesn't that give you pause for thought?

Only that is not what "the theory of evolution" actually means."The theory of evolution" is a theory about what happens to life when it exists. By definition, it is not a theory about how life came to exist in the first place.You seem to me like a nice guy, but a lot of the things that you post here could have used a little more research. Well, why?I mean, I believe in evolution as much as anyone, but that doesn't mean I believe that it must create a being (for example) exempt from gravity. On the contrary, I am absolutely certain that evolution will never produce an organism exempt from the laws of physics. The theory of evolution doesn't mean that any darn thing can happen. On the contrary, the theory of evolution, like any other scientific theory, places limits on what can happen. This is one of them. The theory does not imply that some being should evolve that is exempt from physics, instead it implies that this will never happen.

Then inventing death was something of an error of judgement on his part. But obviously Larni has not found this out. S/he has heard it, sure. That's different. You can no more say that Larni has "found out" and "got to know" that these things are true than a Muslim could say that you have "found out" and "got to know" that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. You have heard it alleged, but you have not found out that it's true. You did not "get to know this", you just got to hear it. Merely hearing it does not produce knowledge or even conviction. Well, the same is true of your religion. And I don't see how one can be morally culpable for not believing things that one does not in fact know.

The pertinence of your hypothetical is also obscure. People who "know" that Christianity is true don't seem to overlap with the group of people who reject it.