Re: QUESTION FOR RELIGIONIST

People have believed in many Gods over the centuries and NO real God has 
ever directly communicated with ALL
his supposed creation to confirm his existence, wishes and commands. Not
has 
any God destroyed or exposed all the false Gods.

Your meandering claims are just your opinion - not evidence.

"Malcolm McLean" <regniztar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:54qdnZJPgIVaBUTanZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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
>