BIll M wrote:
> 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....
......and I know exactly where he got that opinion,
from other humans, just like himself.
.....and I know why he does not produce any verifiable evidence,
- because he doesn't have any
>
>
> "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
> >
|
