From news@ucsu.colorado.edu Wed Nov 18 12:08:53 1992 Received: from ncar.ucar.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA16005; Wed, 18 Nov 92 12:08:53 EST Received: from ucsu.Colorado.EDU by ncar.ucar.EDU (5.65/ NCAR Central Post Office 07/14/92) id AA06885; Wed, 18 Nov 92 10:08:51 MST Received: by ucsu.Colorado.EDU id AA27443 (5.65c+/IDA-1.4.4/CNS-2.1 for soc-religion-christian@ncar.ucar.edu); Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:08:43 -0700 Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:08:43 -0700 From: USENET News System Message-Id: <199211181708.AA27443@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> To: soc-religion-christian@ncar.ucar.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: ucsu.Colorado.EDU!alvin From: alvin@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Kenneth Alvin) Subject: Re: There is no god Message-ID: <1992Nov18.170826.27368@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> Sender: news@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (USENET News System) Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder References: Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:08:26 GMT Lines: 51 In article msh9848@hertz.njit.edu (-Unknown-) writes: >This is a challenge to Xtians out here. Convince me to believe in Xtianity >without quoting the bible. If you prefer , do it by email. > >I do not believe that "god" gave man the bible nor do I believe in >god, heaven or hell. Also I can not be convinced using hell fire and >brimstone fear tactics. > >Matt Harelick My response is more of a comment rather than an argument for or against. First of all, I think we should make a distinction between convincing someone to believe in Christianity and providing a proof of the existence of a god. I am not up on the discussions in s.r.c. with respect to existence proofs, so if the following is inappropriate, feel free to use this just as email input. My experience with proofs is that they are always inconclusive, partly because of a lack of a definable entity, and partly because of a lack of consensus on how nature operates and the limits of our knowledge about physical (i.e. naturalistic laws). IMHO, theists can no more conclusively prove that a god exists than atheists can prove it does not. The supernatural aspects of the entity make anything possible, and yet nothing verifiable in a laboratory. And, if in fact existance of a god/creator could be logically and scientifically proved, it would say nothing about the truth of any particular religious tenets. Thus, the question of existence of a god with particular attributes beyond creator always appears to reduce to a question of faith. This seems to me to be fairly consistent with the central themes of faith in Christianity. As far as convincing someone to believe in Christianity without quoting the Bible; this seems a bit ridiculous since the Bible provides much of the substance of Christianity. Skeptics may examine historical records of biblical times and this may make them more or less accepting of the possible truth of Christianity, but ultimately it is the message the Bible transmits personally to each individual that is key to their acceptance of Christian faith. Obviously, this is my $0.02 and a rather liberal $0.02 at that. It does lead me to the opinion that both non-Christians and Christians ought to be very tolerant of differences each others conclusions on religion, as these conclusions lead from a personal rather than objective perspective. -Ken -- comments, criticism welcome... -Ken alvin@ucsu.colorado.edu From news@news.iastate.edu Wed Nov 18 19:28:15 1992 Received: from beaver.cs.washington.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA12999; Wed, 18 Nov 92 19:28:15 EST Received: from news.iastate.edu by beaver.cs.washington.edu (5.64a/7.1be) id AA09001; Wed, 18 Nov 92 16:28:05 -0800 Return-Path: Received: by news.iastate.edu (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA05374; Wed, 18 Nov 92 18:28:07 -0600 Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: pv3440.vincent.iastate.edu!tcryal From: tcryal@iastate.edu (Ford Prefect) Subject: Re: There is no god Message-Id: Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA References: Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:07:11 GMT Lines: 36 Apparently-To: soc-religion-christian@beaver.cs.washington.edu In msh9848@hertz.njit.edu (-Unknown-) writes: >This is a challenge to Xtians out here. Convince me to believe in Xtianity >without quoting the bible. If you prefer , do it by email. Look around yourself for a minute. Go outside and look at the beauty and grace existant in the world around you. Can you honestly believe that all this actually just happened by itself? To me, all creation speaks of the existance of God. All of this is just too complex and perfect to have just spontaneously happened. As for Christianity, the only source of information that we have that is truly valid happens to be the Bible. There is also much secular history of the man called Jesus Christ. Most religions, at least those with historical beginnings in the Middle East, teach that Jesus of Nazareth existed. The crux of Christianity then is that we believe He is the Son of God and died on a cross to pay for our sins. I can not convince you of anything by just writing some words for you to read. I pray that God will bring some genuine, loving Christians into your life and that you will open your heart to what they will show you through their lives. Then I believe that you will be convinced. The Holy Spirit is the only one with the power to truly convince you of the reality of Christianity. >I do not believe that "god" gave man the bible nor do I believe in >god, heaven or hell. Also I can not be convinced using hell fire and >brimstone fear tactics. Perhaps one day soon you will. As for the fire and brimstone stuff, I wouldn't dream of it. >Matt Harelick > [Comments from our intrepid moderator munched.] Tod Ryal -- +=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+ | tcryal@vincent1.iastate.edu *or* tnd11@isuvax.iastate.edu | | This .sig under construction. (Stupid and tacky, I know, so sue me.) | +=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+ From news@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz Wed Nov 18 21:24:34 1992 Received: from cantva.canterbury.ac.nz by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA18712; Wed, 18 Nov 92 21:24:34 EST Received: from cantua.canterbury.ac.nz by csc.canterbury.ac.nz (PMDF #2553 ) id <01GRC9PNPUZ48ZJ2MY@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>; Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:22:54 +1300 Received: by cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA20811; Thu, 19 Nov 92 15:22:47 NZD Date: 19 Nov 1992 02:22:44 +0000 (GMT) From: cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea) Subject: Re: There is no god To: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Message-Id: Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. X-Envelope-To: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: cantua!cctr114 Nntp-Posting-Host: cantua.canterbury.ac.nz X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6] Lines: 67 Apparently-To: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu References: -Unknown- (msh9848@hertz.njit.edu) wrote: >This is a challenge to Xtians out here. Convince me to believe in Xtianity >without quoting the bible. If you prefer , do it by email. > >I do not believe that "god" gave man the bible nor do I believe in >god, heaven or hell. Also I can not be convinced using hell fire and >brimstone fear tactics. I think that it was the British Philosopher Bertrand Russell who said ``either all of the earth's religions are equally wrong or one of them is right''. Today a large proportion of people are choosing either the first option or taking the option that all the world's religions are equally right and hence making no personal commitment to any particular religion. The poster has essentially thrown out a challenge which can not be answered. I think that it is important to set out what makes Christianity different from other religions. Do do this requires a good knowledge of many other religions, which I admit I do not have. But it seems to me that Christianity is different from other monotheistic religions in that it relies totally on the grace of God for salvation, whereas the others rely on a combination of grace and good works. The other religions I know about expect that people should be good but that if they fail in being good then they can recieve the grace of God by repenting or praying or whatever. In these religions the grace of God is basically there only to fill in the gaps when people aren't good enough on their own. To me this would only be a vaild approach if the gap between God and people was small. But it seems to me that God is infinite and totally pure and holy so that the gap between God and people is unbridgeable by man's good works or acts of piety. So to me religions like Judaism, Benai Noach, and Islam, and eastern religions that beleive in reincarnation are based on assumption that people are capable of being sufficiently good to be accepted by God, or in the case of reincarnation, of moving up the ladder toward God. This assumption seems to me to be false. By contrast, in Christianity the grace of God is one and only thing which brings us salvation. People are totally dependant on God freely forgiving us and accepting us even though we are not worthy to be accepted. In this way I think Christianity is more valid than the other religions I know of. This brings us to the place of Jesus within Christianity. His death and resurrection is unique in world religions. There were other religions in existence at the time when Christianity started that also beleived in dieing and resurrecting gods. What seperates Christianity from these other religions is that the others all occur in unverifiable times and places, and are clearly mythlogical. We can pin point to with in a very few days within a give year when the death and resurection took place and also to a very small number of years as well. We also have a number of people who have left us accounts, Paul at one point tells us of 500 people who had seen Jesus after his resurrection. These people did not beleive that they were making up a new mythology, no matter how much the very liberal branch of Christianity would like to think they were. This rootedness in history is in keeping with the whole of the Judeo-Christian tradition which dates back nearly 4,000 years now. >Matt Harelick -- ___ Bill Rea (o o) -------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w--- | Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre, | E-Mail b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz | | University of Canterbury, | or cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz | | Christchurch, New Zealand | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From daemon@linac.fnal.gov Thu Nov 19 09:55:49 1992 Received: from linac.fnal.gov by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA24227; Thu, 19 Nov 92 09:55:49 EST Received: by linac.fnal.gov (5.65c/IDA-1.4.3); Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:55:45 -0600 Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: newsaintmail From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov Subject: Re: There is no god Message-Id: Sender: daemon@linac.fnal.gov (The Background Man) Nntp-Posting-Host: admec1.fnal.gov Organization: FNAL References: Distribution: USA Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:55:34 GMT Lines: 70 Apparently-To: soc-religion-christian@linac.fnal.gov In article msh9848@hertz.njit.edu (-Unknown-) writes: >This is a challenge to Xtians out here. Convince me to believe in Xtianity >without quoting the bible. If you prefer , do it by email. > >I do not believe that "god" gave man the bible nor do I believe in >god, heaven or hell. Also I can not be convinced using hell fire and >brimstone fear tactics. > >Matt Harelick > How about doing it another way. Lets say there is no God! I mean it. Everything that He stands for, lets lay it aside, because if there is no God, then they are baseless to begin with and just opiates as has been suggested before. The 1st thing you have to do away with is the reality of order. Man is a machine and he merely a cog in the mechanics of the universe. If I should cast off this tattered coat, And go free into the mighty sky; If I should find nothing there But a vast blue, Echoless, ignorant-- What then? (Steven Crane "Black Riders & Other Lines") Everything is gratuitous, contingent. Nothing has meaning, no statement has validity. In truth, there is only despair, anxiety and ennui! You should see Samuel Beckett's "Breath". Just don't blink. It's only 35 second long. It has no juman actors and the props are a pile of rubbish on stage, lit by a light which begins dim, brightens (never fully) and then receds to dimness. There are no words, but there are two sounds. At the begin there is heard a breif cry (like a worried inhalation); at the end the is another cry, this one is an exhaled breath. I thought it was brillant. If you've studied philosophy, you'll recognize this to be a nihilistic view. However, few people give much time to figure out just were this "philosophy" (I think its more emotion than thought) is borne from. Mihilism is the natural child of naturalism, which in turn was the enlightened read-out of the assured results of science and open intellectual inquiry. As a world view, however, it did not account for man, his uniqueness, his value adequately. It did make man the lord of the universe, free to value what he would, and that most naturalists are satisfied enough to end inquiry at this point. However, there seems to be a growing number of people that feel that the results are not so assured, as the closed nature of the universe is perceived to be confining, the notion of death as extinction, and no basis for hope other than alienation from the universe. If God is dead, then everything he stands for is dead. Men just do not know what "caused" them or their decisions. Man is a conscious machine without the ability to effect his own destiny or do anything significant. Therefore, man (as a valuable ) is dead. Instead of have the breath of God, you have Beckett's breath. If you choose not to believe in God (What do you want us to do, put Him in a bottle like some firefly?), then if you don't cop out, you have to disregard all the freedom that Form gives you. Wasn't it Nietzsche that said, that when God is dead, the only sanity was insanity. I say this much for him, he was true enough to himself that he lived, or rather died, the reality of his conclusions. Are you? "God created Arrakis to train the righteous. One can not go against the hand of God." Paul Muad'Dib (Frank Herbert's "DUNE") "All we are is dust in the wind" (Kansas) Rex From mussack@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com Fri Nov 20 11:24:48 1992 Received: from innerdoor.austin.ibm.com by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA20314; Fri, 20 Nov 92 11:24:48 EST Received: by innerdoor.austin.ibm.com (AIX 2.1 2/4.03) id AA24046; Fri, 20 Nov 92 10:24:24 CST Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 10:24:24 CST From: mussack@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack) Message-Id: <9211201624.AA24046@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com> To: christian-request@aramis.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: There is no god I know that I exist, I directly experience it, I close my eyes and I can feel it. I know that there is "other", something that is not me, that I need my senses to perceive. I don't think I created the other, (perhaps I am god deluding myself for some reason), so I think there is some reason for the other. Because this other seems to be so vast and complicated I assume that the reason for the other is some primary, self-important thing. I realize that the other is very contingent, I can imagine many different others that don't exist but could. I assume that the reason for the other is very great, greater than I, so it must be conscious. If the reason were merely some law, such as the law of gravity, it would not be greater than I. This line of thought is very non-rigorous, but it is intuitive to me. If you merely contemplate the realm of existence, why is there anything instead of nothing, why is there life in addition to inanimate objects, but most important, why is there a "me" that is experiencing these things, if you only wonder about these things for a few minutes every day, then you will hopefully understand why I think there is a God. I have thought about it since before I can remember, I still think about it. I don't want to be lonely. I want there to be more "me's" out there that I can communicate with. I think there are because I can see the uniqueness of different people. I hope these other people can see it in me. When a baby is born, as it's coming out it opens its eyes and looks around. When that baby is put in your arms it looks right at you, you can see that same spark in its eyes that you feel in your heart. You realize that love is the most important, most pleasurable, most joyous experience of all the experiences you can have. The universal reason is greater than I so it must also have this in its nature, it must have love, it must be love. But I don't always love. Sometimes I am mean, or bitter, or angry, or selfish, or whatever. But part of love is forgiveness. I need forgiveness for when I screw up, or I'll be lonely again. If the universal reason is love, then it must also have forgiveness in its nature. I grew up believing this. I was taught by my parents, my brothers and sisters, my friends, my teachers, my wife, my kids. I did not have to be convinced, it made perfect sense to me. That must be why it is so hard for me to convince someone else. The point of religion is to communicate to others this basic understanding. Just as there are many languages, there are many religions, but just as there is one reality there is one God. There is no "Christian" God. There is God, He is described by Christians in a certain traditionally Christian way. Don't be discouraged if the description that you hear is "wrong". Any description is wrong, it is incorrect just because it is voiced. The description is correct only if it correlates on both sides of the dialogue. If I meet someone and he talks my talk and describes situations that I understand then I say he is telling the truth. If I meet someone who talks a different language it doesn't mean he is lying, I just don't understand him. If you really don't believe in God as He has been described to you please don't give up. Sure some people lie about God, some people pretend they understand and throw around the correct buzzwords, but some people do understand, they can speak from the heart without regard for "orthodoxy" because they know the truth. How do you tell the difference? I don't know. I know how I tell the difference, but it wouldn't work for you. I've seen complaints on this newsgroup about too much doctrine, but discussions such as these help me. It's hard to "talk" to people when you can't look them in the eyes, but then again it's nice to get out a whole idea without the pressure of being interrupted, or interrupting someone else, or worrying about how I look, to be able to go back and reread at my leisure. This may sound contradictory, but I think I learn most from the people I don't agree with, from the atheists challenging basic principles to discussions of finer points of Biblical interpretation. I don't think it's bickering. Chris Mussack From ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com Tue Nov 24 08:49:58 1992 Flags: 000000000001 Received: from cass.ma02.bull.com by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA05633; Tue, 24 Nov 92 08:49:52 EST Received: by cass.ma02.bull.com (5.65c/082592-1) id AA16218; Tue, 24 Nov 92 08:52:53 EST From: ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) Received-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 08:52:53 EST Message-Id: <199211241352.AA16218@cass.ma02.bull.com> Subject: A Response to Atheism (draft FAQ-type posting for s.r.c.) To: hedrick@klinzhai.rutgers.edu, hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 8:52:37 EST X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Status: RO Hi OFM. You wrote, > > While many postings of this > sort are probably more incitements to flame than requests for > information (a characteristic not limited to our atheist posters, by > the way), I still think it makes sense to have a document in the > archives that deals with some of these issues. I'd appreciate it if > people would like to contribute something, either as postings or as > email to me for inclusion in an FAQ. --clh] > Here's something; do with it as you will, including using pieces of it somewhere else. /Dave Davis ------- Many of the readers of this newsgroup have intellectually engaged the arguments 'against the existence of God' or for atheism, and while some find the arguments 'for God' to be the stronger, others put aside the issue as unanswerable in those terms. Many educated Christians will agree that there may be no intellectually compelling 'proofs' for God, (educated Roman Catholics may be an exception, since it is held in that denomnination that knowledge of the existence of God may be gained through reasoning). Many will, however, argue that religious 'faith' need not be seen as against 'reason', any more than music need be seen as against painting. In any case, many contemporary philosophers will agree that theism is not trivially refuted. Many of the readers of this newsgroup have read, and considered, the books of Bertrand Russell, the FAQ for the newsgroup alt.atheism, the writings of Nietzsche, Freud, Anthony Flew, and others. Some readers of this newsgroup will even agree that the God they worship cannot be 'known', in the sense of intellectual certainty. Leslie Weatherhead wrote a book describing this position, which he held, as 'Agnostic Christianity'. 'Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology' (Wadworth Publishing Co., ISBN: 0-534-06672-0) is said to be a well-balanced recent book on the subject. Hans Kung, a scholar and theologian, in his 1980 book _Does_God_Exist?_ wrote: 'The atheistic critique of religion continues to offer a serious challenge to theology which the latter must meet in an appropriate way: - atheism may not be condemned as deliberate apostasy from God; [. . .] - Neither may atheism be theologically appropriated as hidden "belief in God": [. . .] - Finally, atheism is not to be toyed with, flattered, acquiesced in [by Death-of-God theologians].' [p.339, Vintage pbk ed.] Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: rcheek@access.digex.com (Richard Cheek) Subject: Existence of God Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I hope to give a persuasive argument for the existence of God that is not at all philosophical in a strict sense, though speculation of this nature many consider in itself philosophical, I suppose. I do not wish the facade of presenting some type of philosophical proof or argument because all the proofs have been given in one fashion or another, I suspect, and I don't wish to be presumptuous in attempting to wrestle with minute distinctions of various sorts. Besides, what has the discipline of Metaphysics produced of any use in the last 30 years? It seems to be moving at a galacial clip, if at all. :) I apologise for the many mispellings and typo's that probably inhabit this post, likely due to the efforts of some mideaval demon long forgotten but, none the less, still active.@_ \ @ / 1) The Nature and Criteria of "Proof" in This Approach Typically when people today speak of proving Gods existence, a criteria is used for judging what constitutes "proof" that is peculiar to this subject and similar apologetic claims such as the Deity of Christ. This criteria calls for the evidence and arguments presented by believers to be "air-tight" or of a quality similar to geometric arguments. But it is unfair to make such demands in a subject that is neither a matter of engineering nor enjoys the advantage of having the acceptance of basic apparent truths as with geometric postulates. The nature of evidence for God's existence is of a practical nature because there is a risk consideration involved. We have many possible destinies, in theory at least, one of which is that after death we will face judgement by God for our deeds. Fear of this Judgement is not to be persuasive in and of itself, but should at least motivate us in our search for answers to this question of whether such a Judge exists at all in the first place. 1)a)The Criteria for Apologetic Proof: For those who deem the cost of accepting such a premise as being too high, the criteria becomes ratchetted upwards to impractical levels in order, perhaps, to avoid the appearance of willful ignorance. Such cases seem similar to prooving to a mother her sons guilt on some heinous charge, and can there be to her such proof? Do we find ourselves attempting to prove the unprovable to those who have no interest in proof? I can offer no such proof, either, to those unable to entertain the possible consequences of such a thing as belief in a Divine Judge, but it seems to me that the nature of the choices involved make such a high threshold of proof to be irrelevant. Our situation calls for a decision based on available evidence as to what is the more probable or reasonable, not what is irrefutable and necessary in some geometric fashion. To those who have a genuinely open mind on the subject, I address this argument as a proof of the existence of an intellegent, spir- itual being, who is rightly considered the Creator of the Universe. 1)b)The Nature of Our Choice: Since I have said what I do not mean by proof, I now wish to define what I do mean by the term. I mean something similar to what is considered by a boat captain who has no radar or communications and must rely on his gather- ing facts and use of instinct and logic to determine if indeed he is heading into a hurricane. He weighs the evidence carefully and considers any prior experience that may have a bearing on his decision because the consequences are great, as are our own. For if the Biblical God exists, there is a day of reckoning to plan for at which our soul's resting place for all eternity will be decided. We have to decide, based on existing evidence, whether a Judeo- Christian God is probable or not. For if, in my example, that ship captain determines it is probable that he is in fact heading into a tropical storm, it may become necessary to head to the nearest port and abort the route he had chosen prior to his awareness of the storm. Such a captain will not risk his ship because there is not irrefutable evidence that he is in fact in danger. No, he would weigh the importance of continuing with his cargo, vs the likeli- hood of loosing all he has in a storm. Thus I will attempt merely to provide good reason for believing that we are heading toward a final judgement (the importance of which outweighs other considerations such as the risk I may have to give up smoking). I will attempt to provide arguements that are comp- elling, not geometrically neccessary, that should lead one to a reasonable belief in the likelihood of Jehovah's existence. 2)What Has Always Existed? I start with the consideration that the Universe apparently has had a point in time before which it did not exist as we know it. I say this for essentially two reasons: 1) the 'Big Bang' theory is not held in much doubt any more by professional astronomers, and 2) to postulate the opposite means that the Universe would have had to exist, as it now is, for an infinite amount of time. But such a steady state concept of the Universe is not reasonable, based on what we know of the Universe, because this necessitates the impossibility of anything that might cause the Universe as we know it to cease. Given an infinite amount of time, even the most improbable event will occur, if at all possible. The Law of Entropy, the expansion of the Universe, the existence of black holes at the center of many, if not all, galaxies, and so on, would suggest that the Universe existed, as we know it, for an infinite duration of time is unlikly in the extreme, if not impossible. Those who postulate some oscillating theory of the Universe have the challenge of finding evidence to support such a theory in the face of what we have exper- ienced, which is that all observed oscillations are a degrading pattern and eventually come to a state of rest, and thus such an answer merely places the necessity of accepting an origin point in time for the Universe one more logical step away and merely begs the question. Thus it seems probable to me, based on the evidence cited, to say that there is a Creator of great power, but not much else at this point. 3)What is "Truth"? Now when we observe the operation of the Universe, we see that, accord- ing to our experience up to now, the Universe is apparently ordered. By that I mean that the behavior of the Universe seems to correspond to a logical and essentially mathematical cognitive system. Thus to say that something is "true" implies more than that a single postulate or principle is "true", but also that that "truth" fits into a more broad system of other "truths" in a logical system of such thoughts. To assert that this system does not exist, or that it is some how merely a projection of order upon the man's perception of the Universe is to suggest that any particular "truth" is capable of being or possessing the quality of being "true" independent of any other "truth". Thus it isn't necessarily "true" that if 'A' precludes 'B' and 'A' is "true" that therefore 'B' is not "true", it just wouldn't be "true" for you. Thus the search for objective "Truth" would become irrelevant, and all observations of "truth" merely subjective observances of questionable value other than to the individual who holds to them. I think it safe to assert that the large body of 'hard' science demonstrates the objective nature of "Truth" and that we do not have to investigate every 'B' when we know 'A' is "true" and precludes 'B'. Thus we say that the Universe is reasonably "ordered". This is an important observation, because there is nothing we have ever experienced that can impose such an order except a rational sentient being of *some* kind. So we now pro- gress to the observation that, in all probability, the Creator is a rational intelligent being of *some* kind. 4)Is The Creator Spirit? Proceeding from the observation that this Creator is an intelligent rational being, in all probability, we come to the question of what likely nature is such a being? Is he spirit, if there is such a thing, or some unexperienced form of complex system of, say, electrons in motion? The first question, really, is what are the options, as we know them? 4)a)What is Spirit? Theologians have generally held that there are two realms one of "spirit" and the other of the material. I do not intend to go into all the varied arguments that been knocked about for centuries and which call for years of reading just to learn the definitions of the terms used, I don't know them that well anyway, but I wish to point out two things that suggest that there is some quality to intelligence that goes beyond the mere material. 4)a)i: The Transendence of the Mind First, our minds are capable of choosing among various stimuli. We can choose to eat or not, even if we are very hungry. We can choose to ignore the most imposing sensations from noise to oder to pain. We can select from various stimuli and concentrate on those we wish, when for instance we use peripheral vision to change the focus of our sight without moving our eyes or changing any physical feature of our body at all. What accounts for this? Some suggest that the brain operates similar to the computer and can sort the incoming data and choose between them and that this has no suggestion of anything more than complex electrical patterns. But I point out that the computer is a design by the mind of man and the computer's operation reflects the operation of his mind. This would suggest a designer of our own mind and ultimately begs the question of accounting for the origin of intelligence (or surrenders to the concept of a Creator similar to us who designed our minds on His). To the extent to which the operation of our mind's awarenes goes beyond the merely physical status of our bodies, we, to that same extent, transcend the merely physical and enter a different realm of some nature. 4)a)ii: After Death Experiences and Universal Belief Secondly, the after death experiences of various people seem to suggest a dimension of mental awareness beyond the mere function of our brain. The experience of these people is that, while without any brain activity at all, they experienced awareness, and various perceptions of light, sound, and touch. Now there isn't a computer I've seen yet that can operate while it is off, so what is the most reasonable belief to account for their experiences? That they are involved in some great conspiracy to delude people into believing... what? Could it be they experienced something similar to what various people in many different cultures, almost without exception, have experienced, throughout history? That being that there is something beyond man's simple physical existence that is referred to as the spiritual? I believe it is more than reasonable to accept such a belief as apparently true, at least the burden of proof would be placed on those who would suggest it is not the case. For if 99.9% of mankind believes that 'A' is true, we must place any contrary belief into a position of needing strong evidence, or presume that man is essentially irrational and therefore man's predominate belief holds no bearing at all. I find myself far more comfortable in the company of the vast majority of men absent strong relevant proof to the contrary, and most of those I've known with such conceit as to assert the irrelevance of mankind's near unanimous beliefs only brings my comfort level to unreachable heights. 4)b)Is Man Of Higher Nature Than Creator? Now, if man is to some degree a spiritual being as well as a physical being, is it unreasonable to assume that the only other sentient being we have any realistic concept of would also be a spiritual being? Until someone can show me a type of intelligent being without any experience or facet of the spiritual, it seems probable that any intelligent being would have a similar spiritual dimension as well. Doesn't the existence of a system of cognaitve truths, "Truth" proper, imply the existence of a *cognator*? Is there any experience to suggest that anything other than a spiritual being, as man is, has the ability to have such systems of thought? 4)c)Is a Non-Spiritual Creator Reasonable? But there is also compelling reason when we look at the question of which brought about the other, the spiritual realm or the physical realm. When considering the nature of a probable Creator, is it more reasonable to believe that the Creator is only physical and to no degree possesses spiritual qualities? If so, then from where did man's spiritual dimension originate? Also, if we consider that, in our own world, order would degenerate without the imposition of man's will and intellect, why would there be any basis to believe that, without a similar spiritual quality, the entirely material Creator would not himself be subject to the same considerations that led to the probability that the Universe cannot be eternal and has an origin? Does this not beg the question, then, of the origin of the material? In qualitative terms, where would be the difference between an entirely physical Creator and an entirely physical Universe? Only in the existence of an intelligent, spiritual being does the normal decay of order not pedominate, for any system eventually breaks down absent the maintenance of a spiritual being with a will toward such maintenance. Again the continuation of existence of the physical seems dependent on some non-degrading quality of the spiritual. This seems reasonable too, at least untill some on can show processes similar to Entropy to indicate some type of degradation in the spiritual realm. 5)Summation In summation, certain qualities of the Universe, as we know it, are best explained by the supposition that a rational spiritual being of *some* kind created it, and it is therfore more probable and reasonable to believe that such a Creator exists. God willing, we can discuss "why the christian creator?" in another post.