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