From: jmunro@wyse.wyse.com (Jim Munro)
Subject: Re: no evidence of God.

In article <11714@ut-emx.UUCP> padraig@emx.UUCP (Padraig John Houlahan) writes:
>In article <16659@mimsy.UUCP> mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu writes:
>~Padraig John Houlahan writes:
>~
>~>~Wait a minute Padraig.  Why shouldn't I expect you demonstrate that it WAS a

(Lots of discussion on the validity of 'evidence' deleted for brevity)

This discussion goes on and on. Whenever we discuss the existence of
God, or the reality of 'miracles', we always get into the discussion
of who the burden of proof should fall to.

As we have all agreed many times before, there is no scientific
'proof' for the existance of God, nor for miracles.

In most walks of life, reasonable people take a skeptical position.

'New-Agers' claim 'magical' properties for crystals and will quote
myths and legends which go back thousands of years to support their
claims. They will even produce direct 'evidence' of people who 'feel
better' for carrying crystals around.

Similarly, astrologists believe that the position of 'stars'
somehow predestines our lives, and quote example after example to
support their claims.

The majority of people dismiss these claims as not passing the
normal rules of 'common sense' and say 'If you expect me to believe
then prove it'. In other words, they put the burden of proof on
those claiming magical properties for crystals, or the truth of
astrology.

To those of you who have 'faith' and believe in God, it may seem
self-evident that He exists and therefore you wish to place the
burden of proof for His non-existance on the non-believers.
But for us, the non-existence of God seems self-evident and
'common sense'and we wish to put the burden of proof on you.

If we wish to break this deadlock, we must make more serious attempts
to understand each others respective positions.

Constantly picking each others postings apart may be fun, it may be
what this group is all about, but it doesn't move us forward.

So I feel we should leave 'proof' for the moment. I certainly can't
prove that there is no God, certainly not to the satisfaction
of others on the net. However, the implications of belief or non-
belief in a 'personal' God are huge.

For me, we may or may not ever be able to explain the origins
and workings of the universe. Man is but one of perhaps billions
of types of life which have lived, live, and will live in different
parts of this universe. We are no different in principal from other
forms of life. While others are blessed with big teeth, we have big
brains (or at least a big neo-cortex) which enables us to communicate
and to lead a more sophisticated 'consious' existance than otheranimals.
To me, this is a position which puts us in a very humble position
in the universe, it is consistent with all known scientific 'facts', and
I see no reason to change my position.

On the other hand, belief in the 'personal' God of Christianity implies
that God created the universe just for us. God even sent His only Son
to save us. Animals, nature, and the univers dont matter in this scenarion.
The only thing that matters is us.

To me, this is an extreme arrogance of mankind which defies the
rules of common sense and normal reason.

At least the beliefs of 'primitive' societies made man a part of
nature. Both American indians and Australian aborigines gave
spiritual significance to all parts of the univers, including animals,
plants, and rocks.

Christianity claims the universe in all its complexity and vastness
is merely a set of 'props' in the real action which is firmly
centered on us. Yes, man plays out the age-old saga of good vs evil,
light vs dark, for an audience of one, using the universe as stage
and God as audience, director, and critic.

More later,

Jim Munro

(I'm not ashamed of my name, nor afraid of criticism, take note
XMB00086473, or whatever your name is)