From: MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Existence of God
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:21:40 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <Jan.26.03.32.37.1993.14192@athos.rutgers.edu>, belal@engin.umich.edu
(belal  khalid) says:
>
>Its an undeniable fact that all the religions on this earth claim to be from
>GOD. Muhammad (SAW), Moses, Jesus, Krishna, Budha, Baba Nanak  and every
>religous leader taught people to believe and worship GOD. Although all

Sorry, but it is deniable. For example, we have the Norse mythos, the
Greek, the Egyptian, the Hindu, etc., who are polytheistic. Arguably
major enough religions to be worth a look. Not to mention the Wiccan,
whose major deity is female, or Buddhism, which arguably has no god.

[deletions]

[on the supposed common traits of prophets...]
>taught to look after the poor and needy. They fought all their life against
>the unjust rulers of the time. They were invariably opposed by the people in
>power at that time, although They were highly honoured and valued for the
>purity of their character, even by those who later, on the announcement of

I have seen no evidence supporting this in several of your examples.
In particular, Buddha and Krishna (both of whom already have been noted
as not asserting a monotheist position). Actually, I've heard that
the Buddha left a comfortable life (just rule, no opposition, etc.)
and later established his philosophy.

>felony in his life? So all these righteous persons who came to this world at
>different times and places, all of them say one thing in common... "There is
>a GOD.... There is a GOD...." Not only they claimed that there is a God but
>also they claimed that He talked to them.

First, you have not proven that they all asserted anything near the same
monotheistic religion as you claim. Nor that 'he talked to them.' If you
would, I'd like to see some proof backing these assertions.

>One may find great philosophers or scholors in the world who have done great
>works, but their work cannot be compared to the work of those righteous
>persons. Actually if we study the lives of those philosphers we find that
>no great deeds compared to their lofty sayings.

I must ask here, what do you consider 'great deeds'? And what is wrong
with 'lofty sayings', as you put it? Why can't you compare the works
of philosophers who didn't espouse monotheism with those who did?
Consider Socrates, for example. Do you consider his dying for his
ideals to be nothing special? You seem to value that sort of strength
of will, calling it 'righteousness.'

>in this material world the people whom we know that they are habitual liars,
>when they go to a court and speak something under an oath, they are believed,
>then why don't we believe in those righteous persons?

There is a difference here. People in court speaking under oath must
do so with the realization that what they say can be checked for its
truthfulness or lack thereof. But when it comes to religious writings,
often this cannot be done. There can be no comparison between the two.

>which even a athiest will not like to do. But if there is no fear of a
>superbeing, Why not to lie all the times?, why not to steal and commit
>adultery? What are the reasons that keep them away from these evils? If they
>do not feel the power of some unseen, then they should do whatever pleases
>them. Then truth and lie and justice and opression should be all the same for

Here, I can speak with some assurance that you are wrong. You seem to
think that without the fear of a god there can be no morals. It is true
that I do whatever pleases me. What you missed is that it may please me
to not lie, steal, murder, etc. It may please me simply to avoid the
danger of punishement under the laws of the land, or it may please me
simply to do what I think is right--to not intentionally hurt people.
So you see, it's not all the same for me. And yet harbor no secret fear
of a god. And under no circumstances do I suddenly start praying to god.

[on the creation of humanity...]
>human beings who themselves start from such a weak stage, how can they be
>their own creator. So it proves without any doubt that human beings are not

I can think of one good explanation for this. Evolution. Fossil
studies are indicating that there was a progressive evolution of
humanity from the primates. do you disagree with this evidence?
If so, provide the evidence you have ot support your conclusion.

> ultimately we will find ourselves at the limit of human knowledge.
>At that stage, all the worldly knowledges will reach their limit and will be
>totally exhausted about what had actually happened? So that is a stage where
>divine hand is working.

At one time, mankind's wordly knowledge was rather small. Such simple
processes as the wind, the seasons, and even lightning were then thought
to be god's work. Since then people have discovered the true causes
behind those processes. You are still claiming 'god did it' when we hit
the unknown. I would ask you to reserve your judgement, as I have, until
science is given some time to address the subject. I don't assume that
they will find a cause, nor do I assume a cause based on faith. I stop
at 'I don't know.'

>Some of the people believe that this universe was created just by chance
>and they also try to prove it through science. But God says that all those
>things that happens just by chance, they don't have such an order in them.

First, not everyone who doesn't believe assumes that the universe was
created by chance. Some reserve their judgement (see above). As far as
order goes, localized order has been explained thermodynamically
already, since on the larger scale entropy can increase while
locally it might not seem to.

> Alright, for a moment,
>if we believe that matter was created by chance, and this world also came into
>being by chance, I will ask the readers to study deeply the creation of human
>beings, Is it possible that such a perfect being was created by chance? See
>the stars, the planets, sun etc. and then the creation of day and night.
>Every thing just fits so nicely in a finely woven net, does'nt that
>orderliness speaks of a powerful creator?

In a word, no. You speak of the 'perfect' creation, man. I disagree
here. As if the monotheistic religions you espouse don't have enough
to say about the supposed inherent imperfections in man, I have to
ask how it is you know man is such a 'perfect' creation. As for the
universe, it's simpler. The fact that the universe appears orderly
only says that. It implies nothing. you may marvel at the universe,
but since I have no examples of, say, a disorderly universe with
which to compare, I don't know if it even is all that special.

[on the 'perfect order' of things on earth...]
> Such an enormous and perfect order could never
>have been created just by chance? Only a super-being could do it.

I must wonder how it is you know of the probabilities involved in
such an ecosystem, much less a universe, being constructed the way
it is. Do you claim to have seen other worlds, universes?

[on the prophets winning, so to speak...]
> When Moses called Pharaoh towards
>God, Pharaoh replied that which God was he talking about? "I am GOD" So
>God ruined Pharaoh, and made Moses as the King of that time. Incidence of
>Pharaoh has become an example for this world and also for the next world.

First, I have to question the wisdom of a god who would dash one
populace for another for no apparent reason. Certainly such wisdom
could have provided for all peoples to prosper and eventually
share information peacefully, rather than by war and death. Also,
Pharaoh's reply could be considered another example of how all
people are not universally monotheistic. After all, he asks 'which
god?' implying that there are many. And so it was in the Egyptian
mythos.

> Such a development is impossible without the help of
>a powerful God. Why were their prophecies and their promises fulfilled? No

Again, you refuse to even consider the possibility of coincidence.
Everything for you must seem to be the will of god in one form or
another. Also, can you prove that all prophecies and promises have
been fulfilled? Could you even list which religions you mean when
you say this?

>God has always listened to the prayers of the righteous people of all the
>times. A nonbeliever may say that it might have been by chance that those
>incidents happened that were prayed for. But the accepted prayers are

This is just belief, plain and simple. No evidence or fact here, simply
assertion. Can you prove that your god has answered all prayers for
all time? How many people have cried out to god for help in distress,
as you mentioned before, and yet were not answered? Before I abandoned
christianity, I prayed to god for help, and received no answer. Thus,
your assertion is false.

[On prophecy...]
You have mentioned prophecy before. You have my answer already. Show
that all prohecies in all the religions you are thinking of have come
true. You seem to be shrinking that field down to christianity and
islam. Of course, it can all happen by chance, although you disagree.

>Some athiests claim that this universe is in existence from ever and it will
>last for ever. If this universe is in existence from ever, then it must have

Name a few atheists who make this claim, that the universe as it is
has been around forever and will continue to exist forever. The closest
idea I can think of is the theory that the universe is forever alternating
between expansion and contraction. This does not require infinite energy,
as you state. For the universe to maintain itself steady-state, perhaps.
But who has claimed this? Names some names.

>consumed up and exhausting. So the world is approaching to its end as was
>prophecied by all the religions. It proves that the universe came into being
>a finite time ago and it also has a definite end. We know from our whole

Note that this 'finite time ago' in the bible is thought to be about
eight thousand years or so. And the end-time is said to be much more
spectacular that simple entropy death. Which beginning and which end
do you espouse, and why?

> If we move back in this tree
>of processes which are a result of some other process, ultimately we shall
>come across a process, which could not be attributed to any other process.
>At that place, we are left with no other argument, except to believe
>that it was started by some Super being.

One problem there. The belief in god does not end the tree, for what
created god? Note that the answer 'god created himself' is not only
nonsensical but unnecessary. After all, if we can have an uncaused
god, we might as well have an uncaused universe and skip the extra
belief. Naturally, since I don't know I reserve my judgement.

>All the nonbelievers should think that if there is a God then they will be in
>deep trouble on the day of Reckoning and in the next world.

If a nonbeliever should think that there is a god, they're not much
of a nonbeliever, are they? I for one do not think there is a god,
and so I not overly worried about a 'day of reckoning' or a 'next world.'
In summation, your arguments either based themselves on belief, which
is pointless, or lacked proof. The question of the existence of a god
is still open in my mind. As I said, I reserve my judgement. Based on
what evidence I have (the problem of evil, my own attempts at contact,
etc.) my opinion is that there is no god as you have described above.

Martin Schulte