On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

You appear to be saying that God does not exist and that belief in God is
proof of a lack of intelligence. Since you've just admitted that science
cannot disprove the existence of God, that would appear to impeach your
intellectual credibility somewhat.

Please quote where I have said anything of the kind. I have _never_ said
that God does not exist. I have never said that belief in God is a sign
of a lack of intelligence.

I said that we can neither prove, nor disprove, the existance of God and
that people who can't cope with that are fools. Many major religions have
no problems with this view of God - the Roman Catholic Church, the
Anglican Church and many others state clearly that belief in God is an
act of faith. They also can deal with scientific enquiry that neither
requires nor forces the existance of God.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

You appear to be saying that God does not exist and that belief in God is
proof of a lack of intelligence. Since you've just admitted that science
cannot disprove the existence of God, that would appear to impeach your
intellectual credibility somewhat.

Please quote where I have said anything of the kind. I have _never_ said
that God does not exist. I have never said that belief in God is a sign
of a lack of intelligence.

"Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything."

Sounds pretty derisory to me.

I said that we can neither prove, nor disprove, the existance of God and
that people who can't cope with that are fools.

Well, since that's an incorrect statement, they are not the fools.

There are two failures in your thesis:

1. That we have not yet proven the existence of God does not mean that we
cannot do so.

2. Proof of the existence of God requires, first, a definition of what "God"
is. For example, if one defines "God" as the physical universe, then we can
indeed prove the existence of "God" because the universe exists.

Many major religions have
no problems with this view of God - the Roman Catholic Church, the
Anglican Church and many others state clearly that belief in God is an
act of faith.

The fact that such belief is an act of faith does not mean that either
church does not believe that God does, in fact, exist. It's merely
recognition of the difficulties in proving God's existence. If you ask those
who have experienced "miracles," they will tell you that there is no belief
involved, but that their experiences prove without any doubt that God does
exist.

The incidence of "miracles" that science cannot explain is not trivial.

They also can deal with scientific enquiry that neither
requires nor forces the existance of God.

Well, not quite. Some Catholics (of personal acquaintance) deal just fine
with the conundrum because they understand the limitations of human
intellect and "scientific" enquiry.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

"Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything."

Sounds pretty derisory to me.

That is a critisism of their foolish attempts at "proving" God exists.
It doesn't say anything about people believing in God being fools.
But then, you can't read very well.

Proof of the existence of God requires, first, a definition of what "God"
is.

How can you prove the existance of something if you don't even know what
it is you are setting out to prove?

The fact that such belief is an act of faith does not mean that either
church does not believe that God does, in fact, exist.

Belief is not proof. Proof is much more difficult.

Since God exists in a spiritual world and we exist in a physical
world, there is a permanent problem of proving anything about a
realm in which we don't exist.

Mike

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...

Since God exists in a spiritual world

A thinking human being can't help but conclude that such Gods as may exist
(assuming that any do) probably don't feel constrained by your vapid
pronouncements. One cannot but believe they'd exist wherever the hell they
please.

and we exist in a physical world,

Being both expectant and patient, we hope that will
change........soon.........for some of us. But, we are willing to wait as
long as necessary.

there is a permanent problem of proving anything about a
realm in which we don't exist.

And thus we all see.......and some sympathize with........your problem.

Wolfgang

On 24-Feb-2005, "Wolfgang" wrote:

One cannot but believe they'd exist wherever the hell they
please.

As long as you are working with the Judeo-Christian God, you
are stuck with the fact that even among the faithful, there
is no story or myth where God exists in the physical world.
Every contact between God and man in the Bible is by proxy.

Mike

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 24-Feb-2005, "Wolfgang" wrote:

One cannot but believe they'd exist wherever the hell they
please.

As long as you are working with the Judeo-Christian God, you
are stuck with the fact that even among the faithful, there
is no story or myth where God exists in the physical world.

I'll work with whomever I please.

Every contact between God and man in the Bible is by proxy.

Your book......not mine.

Wolfgang

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, "Wolfgang" wrote:

One cannot but believe they'd exist wherever the hell they
please.

As long as you are working with the Judeo-Christian God, you
are stuck with the fact that even among the faithful, there
is no story or myth where God exists in the physical world.
Every contact between God and man in the Bible is by proxy.

Boy, are you ignorant. I'm not even Christian and I know that this is simply
wrong.

Some examples: Jesus is (according to Christians) the Son of God, and is, in
fact, God himself in one of his Aspects.

Second, God contacted Moses directly when issuing the Ten Commandments.

Third, God interacted directly with Moses and the Isralites when he parted
the Red Sea.

And then there's Lot, his wife, and Sodom and Gomorrah...

The list goes on and on.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 25-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Some examples: Jesus is (according to Christians) the Son of God, and is, in
fact, God himself in one of his Aspects.

Jesus was a man. He was not God in his own form but was the manifestation
of God as a man. He was born to a human woman - Mary. Ask any Christian.

Second, God contacted Moses directly when issuing the Ten Commandments.

He did not reveal himself as God, he spoke to Moses thru a burning bush.
Read the Bible.

Third, God interacted directly with Moses and the Isralites when he parted
the Red Sea.

God didn't part the Red sea. If you check with rabbinical scholars, you'll
find out that Moses did not even cross the Red Sea. That is a mistranslation
of old texts. BTW - even in most Bible translations, Moses parted the
Red Sea. God did not appear in the physical world.

And then there's Lot, his wife, and Sodom and Gomorrah...

What - trying to reveal just how ignorant you really are? Give up
before you dig yourself deeper into a hole of your own stupidity.

Mike

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

"Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything."

Sounds pretty derisory to me.

That is a critisism of their foolish attempts at "proving" God exists.
It doesn't say anything about people believing in God being fools.
But then, you can't read very well.

Proof of the existence of God requires, first, a definition of what
"God"
is.

How can you prove the existance of something if you don't even know what
it is you are setting out to prove?

The fact that such belief is an act of faith does not mean that either
church does not believe that God does, in fact, exist.

Belief is not proof. Proof is much more difficult.

Since God exists in a spiritual world and we exist in a physical
world, there is a permanent problem of proving anything about a
realm in which we don't exist.

Mike

Unless you are insane. Those who KNOW that "god" exists are quite certain
about it and see no problem with promoting their unique personal fantasy as
factual reality.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

"Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything."

Sounds pretty derisory to me.

That is a critisism of their foolish attempts at "proving" God exists.
It doesn't say anything about people believing in God being fools.
But then, you can't read very well.

Proof of the existence of God requires, first, a definition of what
"God"
is.

How can you prove the existance of something if you don't even know what
it is you are setting out to prove?

The fact that such belief is an act of faith does not mean that either
church does not believe that God does, in fact, exist.

Belief is not proof. Proof is much more difficult.

Since God exists in a spiritual world and we exist in a physical
world, there is a permanent problem of proving anything about a
realm in which we don't exist.

Mike

Unless you are insane. Those who KNOW that "god" exists are quite certain
about it and see no problem with promoting their unique personal fantasy as
factual reality.

Perhaps they are privy to knowledge you aren't.... That would not be at all
surprising.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser