Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: net.miracles
Message-ID: <958@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-May-85 23:03:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.958
Posted: Tue May  7 23:03:11 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 9-May-85 02:19:42 EDT
References: <262@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA> <307@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association
Lines: 43

>   I sure don't know what this question is doing in net.origins but I
>   will answer it anyway. Asking a human being to define God is like
>   asking an ant to define a human being, except it would be much easier
>   for the ant. It is impossible for the finite to understand, much less
>   define the infinite.

We know there are both ants and humans.  We don't know that there is a god.
Except through assumption.  Must this point be repeated ad infinitum?

>   God is described in the scriptures. We can never
>   completely understand God but through the scriptures it is possible
>   to know very much about him. The scriptures say He is infinite love,
>   perfectly holy, just, merciful, patient, etc. All powerful, all seeing,
>   all knowing. If you think you can put all this in a definition, you
>   are crazy.

The scriptures say.  And the proof that the scriptures are right is that the
scriptures are the word of god.  And we know that because it says so in the
scriptures.  If you have a real basis for your beliefs, why must you resort
to rehashing that which has already been debunked.

>   Humanism seems to be based on
>   human arrogance and pride and lack of humility.

Typical remark of someone who simply wishes to believe certain things and
won't let any logic stand in his way.  It is "arrogant" only in that YOU
believe that there is something more called god, and you do that only
because you wish to believe that, so you label humanism as arrogant.  Actually
true humanism would recognize that humans are simply organisms that have a
certain perspective on the world.  Doing so, they would not make bold
assumptions like "Wait!  We don't understand this.  It must be 'supernatural'.
The work of god.  The god we formulated in our own minds."  They would instead
recognize that just because we don't understand something doesn't place it
in some otherworldy realm of OUR choosing.

>   Do you actually think that a God with all the attributes mentioned
>   above would reveal himself only to those smart enough to define Him.

You've done a pretty good job of defining how you perceive god to be
yourself, my friend.
-- 
"There!  I've run rings 'round you logically!"
"Oh, intercourse the penguin!"			Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr