On 10 Jul 2006 14:32:09 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:

I had always thought, at the first hearing, that the atheist's and the
scientist's demand for evidence of a god reflected a simple, even a
gullible view of the world. For I asked myself, 'who could want to
demand a "physical evidence" of a god?' The idea seemed then, as it
does now, sadly ridiculous. In school many years ago, there was a
discusion on atheism and how a god might manifest itself. I was amazed
to hear the class discussing with great seriousness whether god was
solid, liquid, or gas.

Also, there seems to be a simplemindedness universally and studiously
applied when the terms 'superstition' and 'supernatural' are used. I
will explore the latter. Even a professional, whether quantum scientist
or 'parapsychologist', might shamefully declare something like "the
event appears to be supernatural - but there may be a more reasonable
explanation".

The point is, there are ONLY reasonable explanations. There are no
supernatural events distinguishable from non-supernatural. What
distinguishes them is not a magic inherent in one and not in the other,
but simply the time and place of their appearance. There will always be
a purely physical explanation, but that fails to present the
significance of one event over the other.

In short, the gullibility I speak of belongs to the western ethos, to
science, christianity, and atheism, who from their own efforts
pointlessly construct the confused concepts of 'superstition' and 'the
supernatural', and just as pointlessly use them to knock down their
opponents. This is why the arguments between atheists and christians
seem simpleminded.

Never mind the glaring fact that you can't prove a single thing
you've said.