On Mar 13, 2:12 pm, "Malcolm McLean" <regniz...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "DanielSan" <danielsan1...@[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
That's your argument, you pray for something that doesn't materialize,
so you don't believe? You are a turd.
|
