Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site faust.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!bbnccv!faust!jlp
From: jlp@faust.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: re: The true God lives in the real w
Message-ID: <22300014@faust.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 12:08:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: faust.22300014
Posted: Thu Sep  5 12:08:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 05:18:43 EDT
References: <515@cmu-cs-k.UUCP>
Lines: 52
Nf-ID: #R:cmu-cs-k:-51500:faust:22300014:000:2974
Nf-From: faust!jlp    Sep  5 12:08:00 1985


>
>In fact, I do not believe in such a being, because a simple application of
>skeptical thought to the issue makes it clear that such an extraordinary
>claim as the existence of an omnipotent, sentient, universe-creating entity
>requires extraordinary proof.  But this was not touched upon in "Even If I
>Did Believe", in which the question was explicitly left open.
>
I believe it is an incorrect conclusion to assume that proof is required.
Perhaps for you proof is required. It is not the case that all people
require the same proof. In the arena of supernatural perception, the
parameters of the game extend beyond three-dimensional perceptions of
reality. Consider also that the yardstick of the universe leaves our
perception base in three dimensions woefully small. Consider this example:
a skeptic cries out "supernatural being, I want to know if you are and who
you are! why don't you come on down so I can get to know you". The being
obliges, and presents itself in the time-space of the skeptic. Aaah, but
this being has a physical span of some 300,000 miles, and consists of
hydrogen particles. The skeptic, not having the tools for detection,
concludes that the being does not exist, and therefore, there must be no
omnipotent, sentient, etc. Is such a being conceivable? Can one conceive of
an atom, with orbiting electrons, which, if magnified to the scale of the
solar system, would map out into exactly such a size, or magnitude? Perhaps
our solar system is merely a galactic atom, our galaxy a DNA for some
grandiosely larger object or being. Proof of the extraordinary is only
necessary when we are limited to ordinary perception.

>I'd also like to add that the willingness of many posters to believe what
>they want to believe regardless of evidence and experience is amazing.  I am
>referring not to Paul, but to such loony tunes as Arndt and Dyer.  Wishful
>thinking reigns, and these people seem to think it is some kind of virtue.

I believe and suggest that it is unfair to label anyone, regardless of
their stated positions or our perception of them. Who's crazy to A may be
normal to B. Since there is no absolute with regard to sanity, how can we
objectively evaluate any human? I perceive Mr. Arndt as a breath of fresh
air, a delightful counterpoint to the somber melodies of normal net
posting. Mr. Dyer has always deported himself with an even hand, and his
postings, while representing a position, are sensitive to the opponents of
that position. I thank him for that.

Many of us have not experienced a cyclotron. Many of us have never seen the
evidence of a meson or muon. Nevertheless, we are willing to believe that
such particles exist, using as our framework of belief the testimony of
those who have witnessed such partices' behavior. We place a level of trust
in their findings and reputation, and we assume their beliefs "by faith",
or believing it without seeing it. Is that so amazing?



Jerryl Payne
...!ihnp4!inmet!faust!jlp