Subject: Re: God waiting to hear from me?? >>But for me the word of the bible isn't enough

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: arrom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) Subject: Re: God waiting to hear from me?? >>But for me the word of the bible isn't enough, I want tangible proof, where is >>it? >Uh, Dene... What are you going to do when God doesn't provide this proof? I am not the original poster, but I'll answer this too: What am I going to do when God doesn't provide his proof? Not believe in or worship God, of course. What else should I do, worship despite the absence of proof? Of course "when God doesn't provide his proof" is a loaded statement, since it assumes that there is a God there who is refusing to provide proof. The whole point of wanting proof is to see IF there's a God there. I cannot distinguish "no proof because God exists and refuses to provide it" from "no proof because there is no God there to be proven". >Really, now: you are making demands upon God about how to run the world >properly. Given the posited relative positions of you and the Creator, it >is laughable that your demands should signify anything. Indeed, in my >opinion it is part of the Divine prerogative to remain hidden. No (at least for me; note I am not the original poster, who could conceivably disagree). I am making demands for evidence. I am not demanding that God do anything; I could not demand such a thing unless I believed there was a God first. Second, suppose I claim God exists but is evil. Whenever you come up with a claim which purports to show that God must do _____ to be evil and he doesn't, I respond that God is much greater than you are and that I laugh at you for claiming that your demands should signify everything, and it is part of God's prerogative to hide his evil from us. Is this valid to show God to be evil? Of course not. So if it's not valid for "evil", why do you claim it to be valid for "existence"? >If there is one thing that I am sure of, it is that God only very rarely >submits to demands to appear. More often he refuses, perhaps to show his >superior position. God is supposed to be omnipotent. Thus, if you claim God must do X to satisfy Y, you are contradicting omnipotence; God need not do anything at all to satisfy Y, for he is omnipotent and can just (figuratively) wave his hand and cause Y to come to pass. God need not refuse to appear to show his superior position. He need not do anything at all except use his omnipotence to show his superior position. (And note this applies whatever Y is, so even if you change it to "God provides no evidence, for some purpose which you cannot know", it STILL applies; nothing in the argument requires that you know what Y is) -- EARTH | --Kenneth Arromdee smog | bricks | UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa AIR mud FIRE| INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu soda water | tequila | BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm WATER |(please, no mail to arrom@aplcen) Element chart from "Science Made Stupid". (The chart seems rather popular...)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank