[geocentrism] Re: Invitation
- From: "philip madsen" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 08:03:56 +1000
Philip M
Once again you delight me. Very nicely reasoned. I am especially sympathetic
here.
Paul, there is nothing delightful about being the Devils advocate. There is
ample physical evidence supporting the existence of God and His world. In
considering the reasons that the Dawkins' of this world reject the offer to
consider this evidence, is no cause for wonder, when one observes the
uncountable varieties and sects of divergent opinions among those who claim to
follow HIM.
Hate, bigotary, pride go well together to close a mind, as do charitas,
submssion, and humility go well together to open a mind.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 10:57 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Invitation
Philip M
Once again you delight me. Very nicely reasoned. I am especially sympathetic
here.
From philip madsen Fri Sep 7 23:00:08 2007
I look forward to his response but don't hold your breath. He know s he
will get creamed! He has no time for people who say 'God did it' but has plenty
of time for those who say 'first there was nothing then it exploded and then
against all the odds out came life miraculously' Jack..
But Jack from outside the discussion, and allowing for no bias either way,
I can see that both points of view, are equally frustrating. But the
rationalist has the greater case. To a person who sees GOD as nothing, and we
cannot substantiate Him as being anything but "spirit", which to a physicist is
"nothing", then his, the rationalists, view of the universe as being
unexplainable by anything other than some strange and complex mechanism has to
be more realistic and more rational than it being designed and made out of
nothing by a fairy, even a super duper omnipotent fairy.
Philosophcally, having no bias, I can see, "God created it." and "'first
there was nothing then it exploded and then against all the odds out came life
"
as equal value statements... But as a physicist, I see it as imcompatible
opposites.
However, without having ever read Dawkins, I can bet you are
oversimplifying the evolutionist position as regards the big bang. The universe
did not come out of nothing. It was/is/will be always there in some form, which
in physics could be some form of energy cycling process. This is a quite
rational view. At least it has to a rationalist , more substance than our
resorting to a spiritual Supreme being, based upon no evidence whatsoever, and
on faith alone to explain existence. If you kept throwing God at me in support
of creation as opposed to the rationalist explanation I proposed for existence,
I would be justly excused for being annoyed. You would be and are being
un-scientific.
Your correct approach would be to offe a separate discussion on "Is there a
Supreme Intelligence called God." To which Dawkins or any other rationalist has
the right to decline, or if he has the grace to seek, accept.
We cannot rationally mix the two subjects together..
Philip.
Paul D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it
now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.10/995 - Release Date: 8/09/2007
1:24 PM
Other related posts:
