Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site philabs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!jah From: jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Re: Is General Goodness just a moral principle? Message-ID: <410@philabs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 09:50:52 EDT Article-I.D.: philabs.410 Posted: Mon Aug 12 09:50:52 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 01:10:01 EDT References: <852@umcp-cs.UUCP> <360@utastro.UUCP> <879@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <1235@pyuxd.UUCP> <2134@pucc-h> <2163@pucc-h> <1366@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY Lines: 49 > >>It is also supported by archaeology, paleontology, cosmology, ... Not an > >>assumption, no, it is the converse (that it DID [yes, it DID, DID, DID and > >>DID!] ), that a creator deliberately caused it to exist, that is the > >>assumption. > > > Rich, you're entering obnoxious mode without provocation (per my article > > "a suggestion"). The parenthetical note in your paragraph above is > > unnecessary. > > The parenthetical note is neither obnoxious nor unnecessary. Given the > weight of evidence supporting the notions that such people wish to debunk, > their attempts really are nothing but "Yes it did happen! It did! It did!" > assertions. I see you doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. Making assertions without any proof. The evidence has all been circumstantial. Few of these scientific fields that you've mentioned are based on empirical studies. Most of these that you mention just collect evidence and then attempt to explain it in the best way they know how. I think that's great and I don't think it should stop, but stop trying to make it all sound like its FACT, FACT, FACT ...when its HYPOTHESIS, HYPOTHESIS, HYPOTHESIS (just using the famous Rich Rosen emphatical redundancy :-). Big difference...really. > "Do not want to admit"? You mean "do not want to assume"! Let's get that > quite clear. One "admits" things that have been shown to be true. Have you > done so? Until you do, don't you dare claim that others who disagree with > your notions "do not want to ADMIT" them. I'd be curious to know what it is God has to do before you believe. Just curious. Do you think that if you were alive when Jesus lived, you would have believed if you saw all the miracles and then the ressurection...or would you have needed more proof? How about when the Red Sea was opened for the Israelites to pass through? Would that have amazed you enough? Or when the three men were thrown into the fire because they wouldn't bow down- and they were unharmed in that fire and a fourth man was seen who looked like the Son of God. How about when the Jordan opened for the wander- ing Israelites, would that have convinced you? What do you have to live through to be convinced? God just may do it, if you define it, so be careful. For the benefit of those who had to see great works, God did them. For the benefit of those who had to see God, He did that too, in the form of His Son Jesus. I think if God came to your door and personally invited you to Heaven, you would turn Him away. I don't believe you need proof. You probably wouldn't believe it if you had it. But really. I would like to know what you would consider conclusive proof. You never know what could happen. Julie