Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!pez
From: pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: What constitutes proof of the existence of God?
Message-ID: <330@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Sep-85 08:53:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.330
Posted: Mon Sep  9 08:53:58 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 04:33:00 EDT
References: <8508172148.AA02946@sdcc6.ARPA> <308@pyuxn.UUCP> <2195@sdcc6.UUCP> <316@pyuxn.UUCP> <2200@sdcc6.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Piscataway, N.J.
Lines: 102
Xref: watmath net.religion:7576 net.religion.christian:1254

Rick,
	You repeatedly claim that I do not offer proof of the existence
of God. I find this strange, since you have already mentioned to me that
you are a believing Christian. Certainly it is not you I need to offer
proof to. However, I will go over again what I have gone over on the
Usenet. There are three possibilities for modeling the forces of good and
evil. The atheists claim they are both the result of natural forces,
and thus not essentially different. The God whorshipers claim that good
is the result of the actions of a loving God, while evil is part of the
natural flow. Maltheists claim that good is the part which is determined
by the natural flow of things, while evil is an interfering entropic force
manifested in a malevolent Damager-God. Why do I believe in the third
model? Think about this. Men work to build things: homes, farms, machines,
families. In doing so, they make use of the forces of nature present as
they build. Their work is thwarted by other forces, forces that seem to act
not according to law, but according to whim, as if they had a will of their
own behind them. (Call it ``anti-nature.'') What does that suggest to you?

	You say ``there are inherant difficulties in discussing the infinite
and the omnipotent.'' Again I say that YOU are building this difficulty into
the questions facing us. Who says these concepts apply to God? You do! But why?

	Rick, you did make the simple statement that ``Jesus Christ WAS
God.'' And I showed that that statement is simply an assertion that
Christians make, believing what God has told them. Don't you see how
His saying ``See? I have become human and suffered just like you.'' is
a ruse and a sham? He never did this, He sent ``His son'' (a duped human)
to do His dirty work, just like a sleazy movie Mafioso-type might do.
Why do you believe God's lies? We don't throw out the Bible, we simply
recognize that it was written by God as a coverup document. Sort of like
a history of Watergate as written by Richard Nixon. Certainly real events
would be discussed, but the perspective would be that of coverup and
self-glorification. I'm not sure what you meant in your section about
Satan being in charge of Earth during the time following the death of Jesus.
Certainly we are witnessing a world with evil in charge. When clergymen
claim that this is why the world is filled with evil, they are making
excuses for God (who uses the name Satan when visibly engaging in evil to
make it seem like it's someone else).

	What else could you blame Hitler or Manson's abnormalities on?
Are you falling for another of God's lies, about the fallenness of man?
Is the reason that you ``just flat out refuse'' to admit that the evil
done by men is God's fault because you are just afraid to admit this?
It takes us back to the three models. I say that the good that man does is
his own doing, and the evil he does is forced upon him by the Damager-God.
You say just the opposite: that the evil that man does is his own doing,
while the good just must be the result of ``help'' from God. Which makes
more sense to you, and why?

	You talk about ``horrid little creatures'' inside of yourself. Who
do you think put those creatures there? I have felt them. Do you what sort
of freedom knowing this fact, and knowing that you can suppress and beat
these infestations of God within you, can bring you? It IS true, Rick.
Trust me. God sets up a moral code for you, and then He builds
obstacles in your way to prevent you from living up to it. If you
really believe in your benevolent Creator-God, how can you account for
this contradiction based on that assumption of God's goodness?

	I never said we were ``perfect at the core,'' I simply said that
without the interference of God's infestation we were basically good.
I can very honestly say that since coming to know God for what He is,
I have never volitionally wronged another person, and I have done my
best to correct any damage that may have been done through any
non-volitional wronging. This is the pure morality of maltheism. God
doesn't determine all our choices, He merely interferes in our minds at
His whim. The trick is to beat Him when He tries to do this. When He
tries to make you forget to do things to cause you problems, do things
to ensure that you will not forget. When He tries to make you do wrong,
realize what is happening and take control. Hitler and Manson and others
like them were dupes in that they accepted the infestations of God in
their minds. You don't have to do this.

	In closing, I would like to respond to this last section of yours:

> If God wants to make people suffer and be miserable then why did He give us
> a Bible that, if followed, would cause more joy and happiness than you or I
> can imagine?  I'm not talking about the Roman Catholic Church through the
> middle ages, I'm talking about the Biblical ideals of love, peace, and unity
> just to name a few that would make this world a better place to be. [...]
> Two sets of sisters made a committment to care for eachother and
> stop fighting and four other kids dedicated themselves to following the
> ideals of the Bible; all because of the words and commands in this Bible
> that you admit God inspired.  Did God blow it?  Even if He didn't expect to
> many people to follow it, why did He write down such a collection of truths
> about what it takes to get people to relate to eachother?  And I'll tell you
> right now that I will refuse to accept a response that says that they'll end
> up blowing it over time.

	I know you refuse to accept a response that would contradict what you
want to believe about God. And that, of course, is truly sad. You ``speak with
forked tongue'' when you talk about the Bible as bringing joy and happiness.
You offhandedly dismiss thousands of years of hatred in the name of God (as
if saying ``that doesn't count''). Don't you see that that's part of the
elegance of God's method of lying? Make it seem like He's written a book of
love, when in reality He's written a textbook on death and hatred. I do hope
you will come to see the light about what God really is, instead of
``refusing to accept'' any evidence might change your mind.

Be well,
-- 
Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories
pyuxn!pez