[net.religion] [Non]Evidence for [non]God

lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (03/24/84)

[The aftermath of the ice storm is in a separate article]

The probable reason Tim Stoehr has "witnessed absolutely nothing that
pointed to the existence of God" is the same one that blocks most
people's view: themselves. Man's high view of himself prevents him from
seeing higher. It is only when man humbles himself and gets out of the
way that he can see what is above himself.

And the concept of a single Creator did not start with Christianity.
Even a skeptic could put it at least as far back as Abraham.

Someone must have been using Lew Mammel's login for the weak argument
against Newton's model that bears Lew's name. "In fact it is the very
crudity of the artificial plant that shows us that it must have been
made by humans." Come on, whoever you are. A more skilled designer would
have made a less-crude plant. An infinitely skilled Designer would make
a real one. Or can't you tell the difference between the crude work of a
child and the skilled work of a master?

Sorry to burst Bruce Giles's bubble, but that "2000+ year old document"
is perhaps the most up-to-date book on man himself. The externals of the
problems have changed, but the internals - the real problems themselves
- have been the same since Adam sinned.

Contrary to Bruce's claim, religion is not a "trivial matter." In it you
find the basis for you beliefs that move you to act the way you do, have
the attitudes you have, and make the decisions you make.  Further, the
question of "why?" can never be ignored - for if it can, give me one
good reason why man should not be exterminated. And if (using the special
conditional of koine Greek) there is an afterlife, eternity is a LOT
longer than the 70 or so years we get here. "He is no fool who gives up
what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."

Jon Stumpf's similar idea "Religion is for man" misses one basic item -
man is for God. If religion were of man's doing, that would be one thing.
But when it comes from the Creator and Sustainer, it's not man's choice.

And in the "leap of faith" discussion, there is one tremendous leap that
hasn't been mentioned yet: if there is nothing outside of this life -
why live? Why not just put everyone out of their misery? :-(

Jon White points out the many things that have been done in the name of
Christianity over the last 2000 years. You may thank Constantine and his
perversion of the faith. You should also note that anything which either
is popular or has power will be used adversely by more than a few - the
name of Christ is not unique in this case.

I would also like to have some *facts* to back up Jon's claim that
Christianity is based on "a bunch of Hebrew myths." Christians aren't
"bending" science to fit their particular views. They are seeing if a
consistent scientific model explains the evidence better than the
predominant model, which has much philosophical support. BTW, since
evolution isn't falsifiable, I guess Jon says it's not science.

And for Thomas Ruschak, you'll get a logical proof for the existence of
God when I find out what your basis for epistemology is - unless, by
definition, it excludes God. I have seen too many "logical" arguments
put forth on Usenet that fail to admit their hidden bases.
-- 
				The Ice Floe of the Q-Bick
				{ucbvax,ihnp4}!{decwrl,amd70}!qubix!lab
				decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA