Hi,
Snow Leopard (Nathan) <juliet784@hotmail.com> writes:
<<
In spite of the fact that he sat right there, we "disproved" him.
Then we read doubting Thomas' trademark story. I wanted to know how
seeing what one believed in constituted faith. A quote I learned, now
I'd like it to share it with you.
>>
Note: from your description, you didn't "disprove" him, you merely destroyed the arguments in favour of his existence. There is a large (and important) difference. Of course, if you want an iron-clad criteria for existence, the only real test is the "kick it and see if it kicks backs". Kicking, of course, is not meant literally... although in this case that would work.
ERiC