Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Proof of existence Message-ID: <1195@pyuxn.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Oct-84 10:23:53 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxn.1195 Posted: Tue Oct 9 10:23:53 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 10-Oct-84 05:05:31 EDT References: pucc-h.1214, <171@usfbobo.UUCP>, <894@houxm.UUCP> <1180@pucc-h>, <1186@pucc-h> <9646@brunix.UUCP> <1297@pucc-h> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 17 > From Andy Banta (pucc-k:agz): > > You people are talking about looking for proof that a God exists or doesn't. > > And as has been pointed out (by dear old C.S. Lewis), this is the subtlest of > all the snares: people can get so wrapped up in trying to prove the existence > of God that they forget all about relating to God Himself, as if God had > nothing to do but *exist*! The same argument has been made for Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. As is often case with C. S. Lewis, all one has to do is make certain presumptions, and everything will be fine. Don't wonder whether or not god exists, just ask him and he'll tell you. I wonder why "his" "response" is never "No. I don't exist." Could it be that assuming that there's something there to answer such a question assumes a specific answer? -- "If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy!" Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr