hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/02/85)
______________________________________________________________________
In several past articles, there have been a lot of readers posting
responses with the assumption that God exists in the first place
while responding to posts that question that existence. There are
many others that deal with some other idea, such as miracles, rather
than the existence of God. I will simply deal with the topic from
the existence of God arena, though this post applies to all others.
The most common reply consists of the basic statement: "But you do
not have the right to ask God to reveal Himself to you. It says in
the Bible ... God will only reveal himself as He chooses." This is
exactly what Rich Rosen is talking about. The author assumes that
there is a God with X and Y characteristics. Use that to reply and
to show that the original writer was wrong in asking for Z from God
to prove His existence because the already-assumed-to-be-existing
God does not provide proof on demand. This is blatant circular
reasoning.
______________________________________________________________________
Live long and prosper.
Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (05/03/85)
> ______________________________________________________________________ > > In several past articles, there have been a lot of readers posting > responses with the assumption that God exists in the first place > while responding to posts that question that existence. There are > many others that deal with some other idea, such as miracles, rather > than the existence of God. I will simply deal with the topic from > the existence of God arena, though this post applies to all others. > Wait a minute, how can the religious believers have a leg to stand on in this argument ? A religion is a belief system. The believer accepts the articles of the religion ON FAITH, because *there is no proof*. That is what faith means. If there were undeniable scientific proof, then it would be a fact, not an item of faith. The very notion that a god or gods exist is an article of faith, not a fact. The Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon - that these are the words of God or Allah is an item of faith with those persons who believe in them, but there is no proof outside of those books that they were written by God or by my aunt Matilde. To say that "it says right here in the Bible that this is the Word of God" doesn't cut it since that is not evidence outside of the item you are taking on faith. Now, I don't want to impugne anyone's religion or beliefs, I am non-commital about other people's religions as long as they don't try to foist them off on me. I believe some pretty odd things of my own but I don't try to hold them up as facts, only as my personal (and admittedly colored) experiences. The point is religions are without proof by their very nature - they require FAITH. THerefore, you cannot speak of their beliefs as fact, and so there can be no argument here about who is accepting what evidence and so forth. -- jcpatilla "'Get stuffed !', the Harlequin replied ..."
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/06/85)
In article <262@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA> version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scgvaxd.UUCP version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA scgvaxd!trwrb!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-edu1!hua hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) writes: >______________________________________________________________________ > >In several past articles, there have been a lot of readers posting >responses with the assumption that God exists in the first place >while responding to posts that question that existence. There are >many others that deal with some other idea, such as miracles, rather >than the existence of God. I will simply deal with the topic from >the existence of God arena, though this post applies to all others. > >The most common reply consists of the basic statement: "But you do >not have the right to ask God to reveal Himself to you. It says in >the Bible ... God will only reveal himself as He chooses." This is >exactly what Rich Rosen is talking about. The author assumes that >there is a God with X and Y characteristics. Use that to reply and >to show that the original writer was wrong in asking for Z from God >to prove His existence because the already-assumed-to-be-existing >God does not provide proof on demand. This is blatant circular >reasoning. >______________________________________________________________________ > >Live long and prosper. >Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa } >Please,Ken, give us the definition of the Creator. I'll help >by starting the sentence for you: X is the Creator (or God, if >you prefer) if and only if X ... > Here is an answer from another newsgroup! I sure don't know what this question is doing in net.origins but I will answer it anyway. Asking a human being to define God is like asking an ant to define a human being, except it would be much easier for the ant. It is impossible for the finite to understand, much less define the infinite. God is described in the scriptures. We can never completely understand God but through the scriptures it is possible to know very much about him. The scriptures say He is infinite love, perfectly holy, just, merciful, patient, etc. All powerful, all seeing, all knowing. If you think you can put all this in a definition, you are crazy. Humans are very intelligent creatures. Some are more intelligent than others. Why must we be able to define and understand God before we can acknowledge Him. Humanism seems to be based on human arrogance and pride and lack of humility. We will never know and understand God until we can fall into the these catagories of the Sermon on the Mount. "Blessed are the poor in spirit.... Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness....They shall see God. The poor in spirit is the one who acknowledges his spiritual poverty, that is, his own spiritual shortcomings. The other is self-explanatory! Do you actually think that a God with all the attributes mentioned above would reveal himself only to those smart enough to define Him. God is not interested in Phd's, definitions, and scientific laws. He is interested in our inner beings. Thats why Christ said, "Unless you become as a little child, you cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven!" Dan
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/08/85)
> I sure don't know what this question is doing in net.origins but I > will answer it anyway. Asking a human being to define God is like > asking an ant to define a human being, except it would be much easier > for the ant. It is impossible for the finite to understand, much less > define the infinite. We know there are both ants and humans. We don't know that there is a god. Except through assumption. Must this point be repeated ad infinitum? > God is described in the scriptures. We can never > completely understand God but through the scriptures it is possible > to know very much about him. The scriptures say He is infinite love, > perfectly holy, just, merciful, patient, etc. All powerful, all seeing, > all knowing. If you think you can put all this in a definition, you > are crazy. The scriptures say. And the proof that the scriptures are right is that the scriptures are the word of god. And we know that because it says so in the scriptures. If you have a real basis for your beliefs, why must you resort to rehashing that which has already been debunked. > Humanism seems to be based on > human arrogance and pride and lack of humility. Typical remark of someone who simply wishes to believe certain things and won't let any logic stand in his way. It is "arrogant" only in that YOU believe that there is something more called god, and you do that only because you wish to believe that, so you label humanism as arrogant. Actually true humanism would recognize that humans are simply organisms that have a certain perspective on the world. Doing so, they would not make bold assumptions like "Wait! We don't understand this. It must be 'supernatural'. The work of god. The god we formulated in our own minds." They would instead recognize that just because we don't understand something doesn't place it in some otherworldy realm of OUR choosing. > Do you actually think that a God with all the attributes mentioned > above would reveal himself only to those smart enough to define Him. You've done a pretty good job of defining how you perceive god to be yourself, my friend. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr