[geocentrism] Re: Invitation

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:58:54 +1000

Dear Jack, You miss read me.  I accuse you of nothing. I merely try to point 
out the invalidity of your arument. Within a careful read of yours below, I try 
to clarify your concerns, and support my original contention. in brown. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jack Lewis 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 12:13 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Invitation

  Dear Philip,
  Please read the following very, very carefully and you will see that what I 
have said is just the same as my other posting that you commented on. Much of 
what you accuse me of is what I accuse evolutionists of. There is no 
contradiction in this and I explain it below. [ there can be no comparison. Our 
faith in God is either by revelation ( my excuse) or accepted in faith in our 
reason, which is psychologically based on hope, or need, with many other 
environmental factors. That is true faith and it cannot be changed. 

  On the other hand, science truely applied , should be based upon experimental 
evidence, as observed and evaluated. This process cannot be duplicated as 
regards the existence of God. When the scientist believes something of science 
to be true, it is because he has judged the evidence, and made a decision. This 
decision cannot be compared with our faith which is based upon a decision to 
accept without reserve. But the scientists "belief" always allows for a change 
in evidence. His "faith" is open to change. He has reservations. In fact he 
depends on change to continue. I said true science above, not to be confused 
with some who may not be so rational, and subject to the frailties of human 
nature. ]

  The whole point of my posting, in a nutshell, is that my belief in a creator 
God (an un-caused first cause) is exactly that - a belief. It is not irrational 
to believe that there was a creator. 

  [ The word has many conotations. Perhaps we are getting confused here. When 
you use the word "irrational" in this phrase, meaning adjective "not using 
reason or clear thinking", I agree with you. I would not call us irrational, 
which give the impression of "unreasonable" .  

  But surely you can see I meant "rational" in the other sense of "rationalism  
noun the belief or principle that actions and opinions should be based on 
reason rather than on emotion or religion."  Notice the dictionary makes 
religion synonomous with emotion. And it is in this sense that I used the word. 
Science is rational. Religion is irrational.  That is how science and all the 
free thinkers and opponents of religion use the word.  
  I hope that clarifies the position on belief systems. Our faith is a 
permanent supernatural virtue. Theirs is no more than a temporary reasoned 
assent. This should answer your next paragraph re faiths. . 

  Those who do not believe in this must believe that order happened without any 
cause, undirected and from nothing and they too have to stick a 'rational' 
label on it - they have no choice. But from their humanistic, materialist world 
view, it doesn't stack-up without they first admit it is their belief. I have 
no problem with evolutionists if they admit that theirs is a belief system. If 
they want to wear the mantle of scientists, they must put their science where 
their mouths are. [ But their belief system by definition has reservations . It 
is where their mouth is.  The science on which evolution is based is admittedly 
incomplete, and certainly very much unexplained. However there is no lack of 
experimental evidence to support the idea of natural selection. Simply because 
you or I cannot comprehend nature sufficiently with all of its possibilities, 
does not give us a case in support of intelligent design. Surely you can see 
that such reasoning is akin to the primitive natives when first confronted with 
men firing guns saw them as being gods. 

  It is OK for me to say 'God did it' because that is my belief. But they 
cannot appeal to 'belief' so they must what???????? Progress! Jack. Thats what 
they work for. Looking for answers makes progress in science. To them, if the 
answer was "God did it" then there is no need to progree in science. As you and 
I know, it would be pointless, and much of the evils of our society would be 
less intense. But that is from the supernatural viewpoint, which we know and 
hold, not the natural, which science feels impelled to investigate.

  Regarding witnessing to non-Christians, my tactic is to show them the 
absurdity of evolution and get them to admit that something must have caused, 
designed, created it etc.

  "witnessing to non-Christians"  You mean athiests don't you? The rest, be he 
Muslim, or tree worshipper, has no problem with the idea of creationism. 

  But the athiest wil not accept your line of reasoning. To them your argument 
is irrational. You even used terminology "absurdity" which is hardly charitable 
, stingingly confrontationalist, with arrogance in the following "get them to 
admit "  phrase. 

  I will follow up soon with some material which puts my alternative approach 
in the way of bringing God to the ungodly. Philip. 


  ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: philip madsen 
    To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 12:49 AM
    Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Invitation

    Jack I know you wrote it to Paul, but, taking it personally,  your 
arguments are typical of  those that could never swing me towards a belief in 
God. It was the standard argument used by the Catholic Church, and even as it 
was to the 14 year old that I was, it is still today without logic. It is what 
I would call "primitive logic" suited to non technical natural peasants. And I 
say this, St thomas Aquinas, and Aristotle, nothwithstanding. I was a true 
seeker. But I was then and am still today  too knowledgeable for Aristotle.   


  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: