Fw: Does God NOT exist? (was Fw: Kalam Cosmological Argument 2
Brian Dean bridean@worldnet.att.net
Sat, 14 Mar 1998 03:26:51 -0500 (00889885611, 19980314081830.AAA22718@briandea)
JOHN B
Ron apparently expects us to believe that he sees no fundamental difference
between belief in the existence of God and belief in the existence of dirty
socks. Yeah, right, Ron, factors such as clear and continuing perception,
experimental repeatability, technological application, etc., mean nothing more
than your DELUDED (the dictionary definiton fits perfectly) claim that God
exists. That's right, Ron, YOU ARE DELUDED. Give me some EVIDENCE
that you are not. If you want evidence that my dirty socks exist, I'll SHOW
them to you. ALL TRUTH is fundamentally empirical. Biblical claims are
fundamentally mystical, unsupported, delusional. People DO suffer from such
problems, and the Biblical setting a is perfect breeding ground for their
development.
Atheism is simply one manifestation of the rejection of assertions for which
there is NO EVIDENCE. It does not require "proof" of non-existence. The
Great Fairy DOES NOT EXIST. This is not a "proven fact", it is a PRACTICAL
IMPERATIVE. God is no different. Show me ONE SCRAP of evidence to the
contrary.
RON
I fully believe in your dirty socks! Please do NOT show them to me!!!
If you can show me no evidence that God does not exist then you must be
an agnostic. If you are an atheist and cannot prove God does NOT exist
by experimental repeatability you are by your own definition deluded.
You choose to dis-believe in God because it is expedient for you,
meeting some deep-seated, perhaps unconscious need. I, for example, feel
no need to refute the existence of any sort of Great Fairy. My
vociferous denial of his (or her) existence, on the other hand, would
tend to indicate rather my fear that he (or she) might in reality exist.
Founding an organization devoted to refuting his (or her) existence and
endlessly attempting to argue his (or her) non-existence would indicate
an unhealthy fixation.