[patriots] Re: Why believe in God?
- From: john TIMBRELL <johntimbrell@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "ukpatriot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ukpatriot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:23:21 +0000
Hello Jack. I know you will take this as a friendly riposte so I know you will
not take offence.My thinking on god is just man's way of boosting his own self
image. Man. in my opinion is minuscule in the natural scheme of things. I do
not denigrate that here on earth we at the moment are at the climax of
evolution; and possibly may continue to control evolution here on earth. But
history tells us that we could destroy ourselves and then the normal processes
of evolution will return. But then my humility tells me that my brain has not
developed sufficiently to understand natural or supernatural processes, so even
through I am sure in my own mind to write such stuff I really cannot understand
the certainties that you believe. I certainly would not write this if it caused
you to doubt your belief because I know whatever I state you will have
sufficient proof to convince yourself that you are right.. but it is wonderful
that me and thee can have a friendly discussion.and anyway there's eff all on
telly.Best wishes. JohnT and glad to know you
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:29:57 +0000
From: ukpatriot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [patriots] Why believe in God?
Hi John,
Regarding this business of believing in God. Consider it this way
- why not believe in a creator instead. here is a rational reason
to do so.
Think about the amount of resources, time and labour that
scientists are putting into robots and artificial intelligence.
Huge corporations like Honda and Sony spend millions and using the
finest brains in the discipline to try and emulate just one or two
feature of the human being. If you were to ask one of these
scientists if it would be possible for a robot with human
intelligence if they decided to let their computers develop the
programs randomly? In other words allow random processes to
dictate how the robot development continued without any human
intelligence input. What do you think they would say?
And yet these same scientists believed that their own human bodies
and brains did develop in such a way with no intelligent input.
This is absolutely nonsensical! If they went to another planet and
saw that it was inhabited by mechanical machines that could think
etc would they assume that they must have evolved? They would
quite rightly assume that a living intelligent creature must have
made them. Why can't they apply the same logic to self replicating
living organisms?
The answer is not a scientific one it is a religious one. They
choose to believe that there was no creator. That is their
starting position. After that they just paint themselves into a
corner.
In their determination to prove evolution they are spending
billions on sending probes to Mars in an attempt to clutch at a
straw. If they can't discover the origin of life where there is an
abundance of life how can they possibly discover it in such a far
removed way? There is however an advantage to this kind of
exploration and that is they are not actually present themselves
and therefore can speculate in the most outrageous ways knowing
that they cannot be disproved. Also it pays the bills! They are on
safe ground - or so they think.
Take it from me John the argument for a creator is water-tight.
Jack
--
www.classicarartist.co.uk
Other related posts:
