If the face to face encounter happened in front of a crowd, yes that would be something that would sway my opinion. Science does not claim that everything came from nothing, religion does. Science simply says we don't know yet.
On Jan 26, 4:44 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25 Jan, 06:29, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You seem to have drawn your own conclusions as to what a scientist > > would view as evidence. You state repeatedly that my demands -or that > > of any scientist- are beyond what may be proven. What do you believe > > are "provable" concepts? > > > >merely asking what evidence would > > > > cause them to change their view exposes the actual thought processes > > > and inherent belief structures that result in said strong atheistic > > > point of view. > > > You pretend to know what it is that an "atheistic" point of view is. > > Please enlighten the rest of us. What is an atheistic point of view? > > > There is no dogma involved, regardless of how much you wish there to > > be one. I do not believe in a god that refuses to be acknowledged by > > testable evidence. To say that god wants "believers" rather than > > "knowers" is the height of idiocy. Any god as vain as holy books > > report him to be (note that they are all male and force restrictions > > on women), > > I'm assuming you've discounted Hathor, Isis, Freya and many other > feminine Gods from many pantheons. > > >would readily put some fingerprint on life, earth, or > > humanity; yet none has. > > Or is it that you refuse to accept that the very fact that life exists > IS such a fingerprint? Is it beyond possibility that God is, > essentially, a vast parallel processor that employs 'life' as his > means of demonstrating His awareness (and, thus, omniscience)? Do you > really think this universe sprang forth from nothing for no reason > when everything since that point happens due to cause-and-effect (as > that isn't particularly logical)? > Science has no problem with energy being neither created nor > destroyed, yet, somehow, I get the impression that you would find the > argument that God is neither created nor destroyed ridiculous. Yet, > if one (energy) is the material essence of the other (God), then the > two are easily reconcilable. It is energy that exists and that has > always been the case. It MAY have appeared to have sprung forth from > nothing, but THAT can be accounted for through geometry. And we KNOW > that appearances can be deceiving. Would you be convinced if you came > face-to-face with an angel? Not that I can arrange that, of course, > but I strongly suspect that there ARE events that could occur that > would change your mind...yet, to date, you haven't had any. That, in > no way, is evidence against. > > > On Jan 23, 10:01 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > For those who make the claim that god does not exist, and assuming > > > that their claim is falsifiable, > > > > On Jan 23, 9:31 pm, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > What is weird is this atheist notion that God (assuming He exists) > > > > would have a duty to people he does not have to grass. The only way > > > > one can raise an argument against God from the death of innocents here > > > > is if it was supposed to be otherwise. For example: > > > > > 1. a caring God would never let innocent grass die > > > > 2. but billions of innocent blades of grass died recently in Haiti > > > > 3. therefore God is uncaring > > > > > The argument does not have the ring of truth in the case of grass. But > > > > s/grass/humans/ and many atheists will find it persuasive. Why? > > > > > On Jan 23, 4:04 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > The haiti disaster did not just kill people. It killed grass, too! > > > > > > > But from the fact that grass died, nobody argues God is not. Why do > > > > > > they argue that because people died, God is not? > > > > > > > As Alexandar Pruss points out inhttp://bit.ly/7sSRUn"We are only > > > > > > really bothered by the problem once we deal with critters that are > > > > > > conscious and capable of sophisticated lives" Why is this? > > > > > > Hmm. You are correct it is an illogical argument to assume there is > > > > > no god because people or grass died. What some people think, I > > > > > imagine, is that it proves if there is a god he is uncaring or > > > > > possibly even cruel. Rather then put myself through the agony of > > > > > believing the All Father doesn't give a rat's ass; I'd rather believe > > > > > he doesn't exist at all. It's less emotionally taxing. I don't get > > > > > angry. > > > > > > I think many angry so-called atheists aren't really atheists at all. > > > > > They make the claim because they want to punish God and all who > > > > > believe. Weird, eh? > > > > > > -Don > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > > > Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > > [email protected]. > > > > > > For more options, visit this group > > > > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-Hidequotedtext - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
