Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet,alt.homosexual,alt.sex,rec.humor,alt.sex.stories,talk.origins,talk.religion.misc,alt.fan.jesus-christ,alt.atheism.satire,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!hookup!ames!news.hawaii.edu!uhunix4.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu!jamesols
From: jamesols@uhunix4.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (James R Olson)
Subject: Re: BABY KILLING JESUS!!!
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: uhunix4.uhcc.hawaii.edu
Message-ID: <D7xy99.DJM@news.hawaii.edu>
Sender: news@news.hawaii.edu
Organization: University of Hawaii
References: <3n651q$qro@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <Andy.Bettis-2404951608250001@andyb-mac.isltd.insignia.com> <1995Apr24.124939.1@daffy.millersv.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 08:00:45 GMT
Lines: 84

In article <1995Apr24.124939.1@daffy.millersv.edu> web44583q239@daffy.millersv.edu (One is my name...the other is not.) writes:
>In article <Andy.Bettis-2404951608250001@andyb-mac.isltd.insignia.com>, Andy.Bettis@isltd.insignia.com (Andy Bettis) writes:
>> In article <chrisleeD7JMqq.AwG@netcom.com>, chrislee@netcom.com
>> (Christopher A. Lee) wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <1995Apr24.093005.1@daffy.millersv.edu>
>> web44583q239@daffy.millersv.edu (One is my name...the other is not.)
>> writes:
>>> >>>: Until someone can prove there is a god, there's nothing to discuss.
>>> >>>: For something to be created or to exist there must be some space for it 
>>> >>>: to exist in.
>>> >
>>> >Ok, but can you DISPROVE there is a god? Think about it.
>>> 
>>> Ok, but can you DISPROVE there is an invisible pink unicorn? Think about it.
>> 
>> Ok, what made you believe in god? Could it have been done by an invisible
>> pink unicorn? Think about it.
>
>Ok, peoples, I gotta apologize for the incompleteness of my previous post.  I
>had meant to type more, but I had a calc test to go to.  It occured to me
>during the test that I should have explained myself.
>
>First, let me start by saying that I can disprove the invisible pink unicorn. 
>Simply by definition:  Invisible pink?  You can't be invisible and pink at the
>same time!  A color would imply being able to see the object.  Since you cannot
>see the object it has no color.  Not if you would have just said invisible
>unicorns....
>
>Anyway, though (pardon if I tend to be a little disorganized...) a person would
>ask me to prove there is a God.  Who do you know there is a God.  I would also
>ask, can you prove there is such a thing as magnatism?  You cannot see it.  You
>can't touch, smell, taste or hear it.  It is beyond all of our sences.  Yet, we
>know it exists by its effects.  Proving God is similar in many ways.  If asked
>to prove God, one could point out the efffects of God.  Look at me.  Well, you
>can't, but consider the idea of me.  Where did I come from?  Can you answer? 
>If so, where did your answer come from (i.e. If you say I came from oranges,
>where did the oranges come from?)?  One could present all of creation as an
>the effect of God.  Sooner or later your going to end up with "Where did that
>come from?"  "I don't know."  Sure, you can try to find out, but there will be
>something else after that you then won't know.  
>
>Ok, some people will say that's pretty cheap.  I can see that.  Some people
>will say "Where did God come from?"  Well, by definition, God just was.  Not
>very satisfying, huh?  Ok.
>
>Well, anyway, you see that proving God can be a little tricky.  However, the
>thing is, can you DISPROVE God?  Taken on the assumption that there is God,
>what is he?  And omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, incomprehensible force? 
>How you disprove such a thing?  
>
>So, you can't disprove God.  But, like magnetism, we do see the effects of God. 
>We may not be able to see touch ect. magnetism and  really can't say where it
>comes from, we know it exists through it's affects.  One could say the same is
>with God, on a base level.  But the truth is, God is not totally beyond all of
>our sences.  Many people in believe in God, and I am one of these, have in some
>way felt his presence.  Some claim He has directly spoken to them, others it's
>just a sence of His presence.  You may call it nuts, you may not be able to
>understand it, but those of us who do experiance such a thing KNOW its there. 
>Of course, that's a little hard to prove as well, but it does put it one up on
>magnetism.  IF we can claim that to exist, we coukld claim God to exist.
>
>Am I making sence?  *shrug*  Beats me.  This is not an EASY subject by any
>stretch of the imagination.  Tell me what you all think though.
>
>
>-- 
>                                                                   , ',    
>                                                                    ) , .  
>_________________________________________________________________ \#\,"|/, 
>  FlamingHeart   | Wade Eric Boger, Millersville  U.            #\_' #  `/ 
> (Call me Pyro)  | WEB44583Q239@DAFFY.MILLERSV.EDU             \## /\_/\ # )
>---------------------------------------------------------------#| ( o o ) #\
> "Can't Ye Just shut up for one moment!?!"  (Siryn)            /@ ==_Y_== @#
> "...At this point, anything's possible..."  (Deadpool)         ##@ `-' ##@ 
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--Deadpool #3~~@@##V#### 

	You haven't proven God, all you've proven is that you'd rather have
cheap answers than unanswered questions. The cheap answer has always been
the function of God, and we got to where we are today by the efforts of those
who rejected cheap answers. 
	Nietzche said "Contemplate the void, and the void contemplates you."
This explains why so many are afraid of true examination.
	JimmyO (insufferably educated)
