[geocentrism] Re: Statement of Faith
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Mike" <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:18:02 -0000
Dear Mike,
Nothing in my posting to you concerned your problem with Neville. It was to
do with your denial that you have avoided religion in your various
responses. I have therefore left my posting intact for you to re-read and
explain why this is not so.
In your last paragraph you say you do not' believe' anything about the
creation of the cosmos. So how do you express this event? You don't want to
be drawn because you know that you can only speak of , whether you like it
or not, your belief of how the cosmos happened.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike" <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "Philip"
<joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "Dan" <danchap9@xxxxxxxxx>; "Robert Bennett"
<robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>; "Gary L. Shelton" <GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 2:43 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Statement of Faith
> Dear Jack,
>
> > Dear Mike, With respect you are not able to avoid all religious
> > discussion here! The mere fact that you state that you do not believe
> > in God means that you believe in something else. You may remember
> > the last time you were on the forum I spoke about getting back to
> > basics.
>
> I believe in logic, as does Neville if he is going to attempt to use
> mathematics to prove anything.
>
> > You believe, if I am correct, that the cosmos came about unaided and
> > from nothing. This is an irrational position for a materialist to
> > take. However you are happy to put your faith into that paradigm.
> > Since it is a faith ergo it must be religious. This means that any
> > scientific data based on this stance must be also suspect and needs
> > to be re-evaluated and stripped of its assumptions or acknowledged
> > that they are just assumptions. The problem is that the assumptions
> > are soon forgotten and replaced as fact. Much of modern science and
> > some historical, is founded on a very shaky foundation. However you
> > are protected by the fact that you believe you will never know the
> > truth and therefore it doesn't matter whether your science is right
> > or wrong.
>
> None of that is relevant to the fact that Neville made a mathematical
> mistake in his Laws of Physics page and won't admit it.
>
> > I believe that the cosmos could not possibly have come into being
> > unaided and from nothing. This is a rational position . Something
> > must have made something - this is truly a materialist position. I
> > believe that it was created by a Creator out of nothing. I believe
> > that the Bible informs us about this Creator. This means that
> > scientific data must stand up to this paradigm.
>
> I don't "believe" anything about the creation of the universe. I will
> not be drawn any further than that into a religious discussion over
> Neville's attempts at mathematical misdirection.
>
> Regards,
> Mike.
Other related posts:
