Re: QUESTION FOR RELIGIONIST

"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:5aOdnZcgDsTsG0XanZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Sorry, but the Church is not objective, verifiable evidence of God any 
> more than the Church of Scientology is objective, verifiable evidence of

> Xenu, or the Heaven's Gate cult was objective, verifiable evidence of 
> aliens.
>
> The Church was created by man.
>
The atheist prays to God for sausages, and no string of sausages 
materialises on the table. He concludes that he might as well pray to a
jug 
of milk.

There might be an omnipotent, onmiscient being somewhere. Being omnipotent

He could certainly hide all evidence of His existence. But, thinks the 
atheist, is it even worth considering such a possibility? He tries the 
prayer for sausages again. Nope.

Another argument might be that Jesus supposedly rose from the dead, but
then 
ascended to heaven 40 days later. Well isn't that too convenient, thinks
our 
atheist. Christians can't produce a living Jesus. 2000 years later it is 
unreasonable to expect anyone to produce a dead body. No the claims are 
unfalsifiable.

However to be fair you've got to at least consider Jesus' explanation for 
ascending.
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go
away: 
for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I
depart, 
I will send him unto you."

It's perfectly reasonable to suppose that Jesus would have founded an 
organisation to continue His ideas. The question is whether He was a god,
or 
just a regular bloke flasely considered to be a god shortly after His
death. 
The claim to send a Comforter (the Holy Spirit) after death more or less 
constitutes a claim to divinity. We won't split hairs on the nature of 
Christ.

So the fact that Jesus' handiwork lives on gets rid of the objection of an

omnipotnet God who hides all evidence of His existence not being worth 
considering. It is not a tangible, objective, verifiable god in itself,
but 
it is a tangible, objective, verifiable thing that might have been done by
a 
god.

There are points of refutation. We've already met one. "The Church is just
a 
commercial organisation, like MacDonalds" That wouldn't really be
consistent 
with a God being content for it to be considered His organisation.

You can also apply tnhis apparatus to the Church of Scientology. Is that 
"just a commerical organisation, like MacDonalds?". Or to the Heaven's
Gate 
cult. Did that organisation preach moral error?

In practise most atheists also believe that the Church teaches moral
errors. 
There's no logical necessity for this to be the case, but it is pretty 
common. So actually there's pretty little point in asking God to reveal 
Himself if you believe that His ideas are moral errors. Any omnipotent
being 
with any sensitivity would leave it to humans to sort that one out first, 
amongst themselves.

-- 
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm