On 22 Dec 2005 16:28:00 -0800, "L.Roberts." <ozzcat2003@yahoo.com> wrote:

Incorrect. God clearly exists.
Paul

There, there, Paul, of course he does.

Yep, he does. But if you can offer some evidence that he doesn't, I'll be glad
to talk it over with you.

My NOT!, which you cut out, was not meant as a statement that your god
does not exist, but as a counter to my statement, '...of course he
does.', meaning, no, I do NOT say it does. Had I meant the way you took
it I would have combined both sentences.

You should work on your communication skills then.

Now, assuming you speak of the Hebrew/Christian God, who is reputed to
be 'everywhere', and, seeings where I see no evidence of it here in my
computer lab, and concatenating that with my never in my life having
met a true Christian (though I have personally known, and or known of,
thousands of phoneys), and the fact that most stories concerning the
character of that character are bizarre, contradictory, absurd,
decidedly wrong and very strange, to say the least, and, that it is
not evident in any way form or manner, in you, (or, is it?) then, well,
do you really think it unreasonable for me to conclude that that god,
doesn't exist?

Yes it's unreasonable. All evidence in existence demands the presence of
almighty God.

There is NO evidence in existence that God doesn't exist.

If you have some, bring it up and we'll discuss.

Would you also want me to produce evidence that Zeus,
whom I also believe doesn't exist, doesn't exist?

You have nothing either way.

I think it far more
reasonble for me to conclude that that god does not exist then for you
to conclude that it does.

Me: all evidence of existence. You: NO evidence of non-existence

Evidence, you want evidence? You first. If you can even come up with a
plausible case for the rational acceptance for the existance of your
'God', then, I would seriously consider 'believing' in it's existence,
but, that is not to say, I would believe in it's 'good'.

Faith is not belief without evidence. Rather, faith is belief without proof

*****
Evidence of God (Rev1)- duke32, circa 2002AD

1. The belief that a supreme being is the creator of the universe is
based on a profession by those that believe that is equal to, but no
less than, any profession that our universe exists for any other
alternative reason that can be imagined.

One could hypothesize an astronomical event such as a prior universe
that collapsed in on itself and has now exploded outward to form our new
present universe. If this did happen, it would have happened again
and again for the same reason as the latest occurrence, thereby
suggesting that the universe always was, is, and always will be. Yet
another equal suggestion is that the universe was birthed out of
another universe, or another dimension.

The human mind cannot cope with the idea that all things lack a
beginning, and clearly neither matter nor energy on their own, the
basic building blocks of the universe, could either exist in and of
itself, or in and of its own intelligence.

The profession by believers is that our universe is a creation of
almighty God who is truly acknowledged as "always was, is, and always
will be". No alternative is available.

2. The big bang - first there was nothing - no time, no mass, no energy, no
"outer space"

which was not there before, and then it exploded outward to form our universe,
including "time" and all "outer space" as we know it.

The universe is expanding, but into what? Is there an edge to the universe, and
if there is, what is it expanding into?

3. Medical science itself professes the human body to reflect a
"design with purpose". It consists of a central computer (brain)
supported by a fluid transfer system (blood) forced along by a pump
(heart), an energy conversion system (stomach and intestines), a waste
disposal system, an oxygen transfer system (lungs) that is required to
transfer necessary oxygen to the brain and to the body parts,
maintenance organs (spleen, gall bladder, etc), and a body salinity
(same as ocean water) exactly correct as necessary for transfer of
minute electrical signals to/from the brain to operate and control the
body.

4. The conception equation contained in animal forms is divided 50%
in the male and 50% in the female. We only mix the chemicals. Of special
interest is the fact that the male and female organs are of complimentary shape
in mammals. These two facts are especially conducive to support planned
design.

5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in relationships of
life forms as we move from the least to the greatest:

The rock (inanimate object) does not respond to, or relate to, the
plant's existence because it fully lacks the faculties to do so. Nor
does the plant acknowledge, in any fashion, it's awareness of the
inanimate object.

One level upward, the plant (simple life) does not respond to, or
relate to, the cow's existence because it lacks the faculties to do
so. However, the cow does have a limited reverse recognition of the
plant because it is a noted food source for the cow, but the plant
does not relate in any way to the cow, what it is, or why it is.

One level up, the cow (complex life form) does not respond to, or
relate to, the human's existence, other than in very rudimentary ways,
because it lacks the faculties to do so. Man, on the other hand, has
a full range of knowledge and a clear relationship directed backward
to the cow including leading the cow by the nose, but the cow has
minimal upward reaction to the man other than the cow sees the man,
but has no idea what the man is or what the man does or why the man is
there.

Notice how one level can relate backwards to a lower level, but in the
opposite higher level only in a very rudimentary fashion. Yet each
higher level not only exists but exists "basically unknown" to the
level below it.

What, then, regarding the existence of a level higher than the human?
As is seen at each level, the inability, or limited ability, to relate
to the level above it does not in any way negate its very existence.

We knowingly lack sufficient faculties to respond to, or relate to, a
higher level above man. Does this negate the existence of such a
level? Why should we be able to relate upwards when lower life can't.
By all logic, there should be at least one level above human.

As humans (mankind), we possess tremendous advanced faculties over
those of the cow - intelligence, reason, logic, love, empathy,
sympathy, knowing we suffer and why, etc. And we can use these
faculties to study, learn, reason, dream, and subjectively conclude
that, logically speaking, some level should exist higher than man.

As before, we too are limited in our ability to relate to that higher
level, but in no way does this negate its existence.

If there is no greater known than man, then man would be the pinnacle
of life, the top - evidenced by the mess we make of the world - war,
disease, pestilence, hatred, man's inhumanity to man, etc.

Man as the ultimate, the pinnacle, the top, is illogical.

How many levels are there above us? We don't know - we can't even
prove so much as one level. The top level, by all logic, must be
*perfection*. Is it reasonable to think the move from man to the top
is made in one step? That is not very imaginative.

So let's think in term of two steps - one greater than man and one
lesser than a supreme being. Strangely enough, the "angel" fits the
position exactly, more than man but less than perfection.

Can we prove it - of course not. But we can use our advanced
capacities to dream, to aspire, to reach out for that possible next
step, from which we can profess to truly be the creation of one more
perfect than us.
*****

I wonder if there is a 'god', a 'great spirit', (actually I lean
towards belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster) but I have no doubt but
that the thing the Hebrews, the Muslims and so called Christians call
God, doesn't exist, but yes, puke, I have no more evidence of it's
non-existence than you have of the non-existence of Thor.

Thor never lifted so much as one wooden finger.

There is no evidence for Thor; there is no proof for Thor.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****