Philip M I was not casting you in the role of Devil's Advocate and I seriously doubt you could be swayed from you position. Rather I sought to indicate my admiration for the way you can and do home in on the deficiencies in the arguments proposed by your own team and have the moral courage to point them out publicly when others might just keep silent knowing that the less sophisticated might still be persuaded. This is what I think of as integrity, a quality I admire and seek to achieve. Paul D ----- Original Message ---- From: philip madsen <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Saturday, 8 September, 2007 10:03:56 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Invitation 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. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html