Re: TOO MANY GODS



DO YOU THINK YOUR IMAGINATION IS PROOF OR EVIDENCE OF YOUR GOD?



"IlBeBauck@xxxxxxxxx" <ilbebauck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eaf0cbca-f2e7-4795-affc-461668b3c99c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 29, 6:15 pm, duus <duu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:11:22 -0700, IlBeBa...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 28, 5:33 am, "Bill M" <wmec...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Where is any REAL God? Why doesn't he confirm his existence by directly

communicating with us except through thousands of questionable Priests,
Rabbis,

Imams and preachers?

I am absolutely amazed by people that still believe in Gods and
habitually follow their religious myths, fables and ceremonies.

There are thousands of different God beliefs but NO God ever appears to
or communicates with any of the sane members of society. No sane
members of society ever directly hear from their God, dead friends or
relatives. They

ONLY hear from their religious leaders.

How can any REAL God be so totally out of control and never confirm
it's existence, wishes and commands to the BILLIONS of humans it
supposedly created?

I have challenged people, over the years, to provide me with objective
verifiable evidence that ANY Gods exist. Opinions, books and
unsubstantiated

claims are not objective verifiable evidence.

I have received none. Even the Priests, Rabbis, Imams, and other
religious leaders have never provided ANY objective verifiable evidence
that their Gods exist
except in ancient myths and fables. Why would any REAL God be so
secretive? Why
would any REAL God permit the confusion of it's creations by so many
false Gods?

It is quite obvious that ALL Gods are purely the mental creations and
desires of man.

I again challenge any religious leader or God believer to provide
objective verifiable

evidence that their God exists in reality - not just peoples
imaginations!

--
Bill M

--
Bill M

There is no personal theistic Creator only if it is possible for the
faces on Mt. Rushmore to have arrived from running mud, rains, sun, lots
of wind, many lightening strikes on the rocks, time , and luck . The
Cosmos is MANY MANY times more complex and enriched with information
than Mt. Rushmore. Is it at all possible for Mt. Rushmore to have
come about via atheistic means ????

Um, yeah. It would have been possible for that to have happened by purely
natural[1] means. It would be highly unlikely (especially if you went in
with a preconceived notion of exactly what you wanted to find) and it
would take a really long time if it did happen, but it could happen.
Clouds do something similar all the time (though it's obviously more
transient).

Of course, nobody believes that Mt. Rushmore didn't have a creator,
particularly since we have pretty overwhelming evidence that it did. And
yes, if we came across it without knowing where it came from, we'd assume
it probably had a creator. And we'd probably try to figure out who that
creator was.

But if we hadn't found him after a couple of thousand years of looking,
if every hypothesis of who the creator might have been had more problems
than the hypothesis that it just occurred naturally, we'd probably
eventually decide that it was a natural formation and say, "Wow, what a
cool thing to have happened without anyone planning it."

[1] Since atheism doesn't specifically deny the existence of human
artisans, I think it's fairly obvious that it _did_ happen within the
confines of "atheistic" means.

--
duus- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Precisely the point im trying to make ; if it took a Creator for
faces on Mt. Rushmore then a personal Creator is much more required
for a personal Cosmos such as ours given the 3 limited examples I
made in the post directly above this one. The next step is to move
toward the Creator by growing in knowledge of him , discovering his
level of care and love as evidenced by a very unique personal creation
and troward us since he fashioned it all around us being here, then
communing with this almighty personal Creator since he designed us
with a personal Soul , Spirit, Mind to do exactly that . Inviting
him into our lives is the next logical and right step to take.
Opening our heart to him establishes a connection...not a hokey pokey
experience..but a real deliberate act of contact. Something that
many people from all walks of life have done and are
experiencing..including but not limited to : Scientists,
Philosophers, Presidents, Kings, Generals, the very educated, the
not so educated, Butcher, Bakers and Candlestick Makers... to name a
few. What will you do with the creator of the universe ? Keep him
at bay or invite him in to establish a real personal relationship ?
We have the freewill to decide , and each comes with ramifications in
the final analysis. www.impactapologetics.com to gain more
knowledge , if desired.


.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker
    ... >> convincing evidence. ... >against that creator. ... >> If someone does search and find belief in God - but a different one ... >> that you can sin without an act of will and can even sin without being ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Taking God out of the picture is not science.
    ... So let me get this straight: Religion and God are not science. ... not that anything in science requires proof, it requires evidence. ... chance-no evidence) or a Creator ... To assert that God created life is not "scientific" because for the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Taking God out of the picture is not science.
    ... So let me get this straight: Religion and God are not science. ... not that anything in science requires proof, it requires evidence. ... chance-no evidence) or a Creator ... To assert that God created life is not "scientific" because for the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Taking God out of the picture is not science.
    ... So let me get this straight: Religion and God are not science. ... not that anything in science requires proof, it requires evidence. ... chance-no evidence) or a Creator ... To assert that God created life is not "scientific" because for the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The fish (darwin?) symbol...
    ... > straightforward evidence to match. ... > time it's your turn to make the effort to understand plain English. ... >> understand, so it must be wrong, and it really was God. ... Are you suggesting that there might be a God *and* a Creator, ...
    (uk.rec.driving)