Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet,rec.humor,talk.origins,talk.religion.misc,alt.fan.jesus-christ,alt.atheism.satire,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!uunet!iglou!iglou.iglou.com!gnewman
From: gnewman@iglou.iglou.com (Gregory Newman)
Subject: Re: BABY KILLING JESUS!!!
Message-ID: <D8F402.HyD@iglou.com>
Sender: news@iglou.com (News Administrator)
Organization: IgLou Internet Services
References: <3m1bvo$1rt@webe.hooked.net> <3mub1v$1tq@deep.rsoft.bc.ca> <Pine.SUN.3.91.950506165914.20824B-100000@taft.law.uc.edu> <jsteyn.15.2FB0918C@dos-lan.cs.up.ac.za>
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 14:24:02 GMT
Lines: 67

jsteyn@dos-lan.cs.up.ac.za (Jans Steyn) writes:

>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950506165914.20824B-100000@taft.law.uc.edu> "Prism,Mirror,Lens" <damrau@taft.law.uc.edu> writes:
>>Subject: Re: BABY KILLING JESUS!!!
>>From: "Prism,Mirror,Lens" <damrau@taft.law.uc.edu>
>>Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 17:13:35 -0400

>>On Thu, 27 Apr 1995 slaunchbury@ivory.trentu.ca wrote:

>>> >>>>: 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.
>>> >

>>My debut de-lurk:

>>I have thought about it.  In Logic 101 in undergrad I seem to recall 
>>being taught that you cannot prove a negative.   And now, in law school, 
>>I see that our system of justice is based on that premise; a defendant 
>>does not have to prove that he/she did not commit a crime, the state (the 
>>entity making the claim) has to prove that the defendant committed a 
>>crime.  Would the people making claims of the existence of God and 
>>then smugly asking the atheists to disprove their claim want that kind of 
>>logic used at their next trial?  Come to think of it, the spanish 
>>inquisition WAS based on that premise, wasn't it?

>>So, of course, in logic, I cannot disprove the existence of God. But here
>>is what I am willing to do:  I am willing to give the theists one year to
>>pray for the state of Arizona, and Arizona only, to be turned into a lush,
>>tropical paradise.  We can use the state of, say, Texas, for a control.  
>>I am 100% willing to abide by the results.  If Arizona is transformed, I 
>>will go to church.  If, as we all know it will, nothing changes, the 
>>believers have to SHUT UP.

>>I guess this is where the believers start to hem and haw and explain why 
>>their almighty, all-powerful Master of the Universe can't do that.
>> 

>That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. 

 Why? Take a gallon of red paint. Throw it on a wall. The wall gets red. 
It doesn't matter a BIT whether you or the wall or your next door 
neighbor WANTS the wall to be red, or whether you know or BELIEVE that 
the wall will get red. The wall WILL get red.

  If your god doesn't work as well as paint, why bother?


 Let's suppose two 
>brothers argue about whether their dad loves them or not.  They might say:
>"Let's ask him to buy us an ice-cream.  If he does, he loves us.  If he 
>doesn't, he hates us." If their dad wants to buy them an ice-cream, he 
>does.  If he doesn't want to, he doesn't.  He may for instance decide not 
>to, because he knows it will ruin their appetite, and he cares for them 
>because he loves them.  On the other hand, he might not love his kids, but 
>decide to buy them an ice-cream just to keep them from nagging.

>God doesn't want to proof his existence to the world.  That is because he 
>only wants all the devoted Christians to go to heaven.  People who doesn't 
>belief in His word without proof are not suitable and will go to hell.

>-JHS.
-- 
   **Bonz***
