From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Help
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:04:27 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov12.192506.26872@samba.oit.unc.edu> Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>Ok, people, I have been reading this board for quite some time, and
>personally, I must say both sides are arguing for nothing. You are all
>wasting your breath because you know as well as I that there will never
>be what you would call proof unless God shows himself to each and every
>atheist in this world. Every atheist I have ever encountered sticks to the
>tiring line, "If I didn't witness it, I don't believe it." First of all let
>me ask you this: Did you witness any of the scientific proofs for anything
>beyond what one can prove in an ordinary lab setting? Probably not. In fact,
>I'm sure there are abundant examples where you are trusting the claims of
>a few mere men (or women) without witnessing proof yourself.


	First, I may not have witnessed every scientific experiment. 
However, I don't have to! *IF* I wanted to perform a particular experiment, 
I could do so ( provided I had the support)! If one makes a startling 
discovery, which sounds improbably, other scientists more certainly will 
verify it. That is why, for publication in any reputable journel, you must 
provide the test procedures, not just the result. 

	For an excellent example of this checks and balance system, I point 
you in the direction of fushion in a jar...

	However, how can I even *conceive* of a way to test the hypothesis 
that "god wills X", let alone perform it????



>>As a second point, I'd like to assert that no human can even hope to talk
>intellectually about the reality that exists beyond human scope. You have
>no idea whatsoever whether unicorns really do exist or not because you have
>not had the opportunity to visit any other planets in any other solar
>system. So how can you be so bold to discount the existence of anything?

	Well, I can assert that on the Earth, unicorns as living breathing 
creatures ( no dolls or pictures ) do not exist. As part of the definition 
of a unicorn, it must be normal air breathing, have access to cute human 
princess, etc. Would you care to point out another planet which fits the 
feasibility scale for human life?

	The point is, we have not one iota of evidence, no matter how 
flimsy, that unicorns exist on other planets. And, we have alot of 
supporting evidence that they feasibly can't.
	
	Whether or not god exists is unknowable, imho, but to state that god 
exists as a known truth is a fallacy.


>Thirdly, and I ask this out of sheer confusion myself (and I'd really like
>true opinions on what you make of this), I am aware that your wonderful
>scientists have now discovered a way to tap the area of the brain that
>triggers out-of-body experiences, and that they now in fact have a 
>laboratory>where one (with much money to blow) can experience an OOB. Given 
>that>after coming back from one of these the person can relay information 
>which>occured in other rooms/states/countries/etc while they were 'gone', 
>what>do you make of this obvious proof that the human body entails more 
>than>its physical being? How would you explain this, and does this not 
>provide>a damn good proof that when we die we are only leaving our physical 
>body?>>*Note: This is absolutely NO claim for Christianity or any other 
>religion>       but merely a strong validation for eternal life. (no 
>reference of>       Heaven, Hell, God, angels, etc. just the facts)
>
>I'd appreciate any input and anybody who would like to know where this
>laboratory is, I can certainly give you that info.

	These people wouldn't be christian scientists, would they?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism