Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a name for God?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 31 Mar 2001 21:02:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
235 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ryan Farrington writes:
> Dave Schuler:
> > You're setting yourself a larger task than I think is called for; the
> > existence of God isn't predicated on the necessity of that existence. • Lots
> > of things exist without being "needed," unless we're ascribing some
> > unguessable purpose behind them. In that case, you're right--the argument
> > is longer than we probably want! 8^)
>
>
> <nosarcasm>
> What I meant was that I can't really prove the *existence* of God, but I can
> prove that God *must exist* in order for anything else to exist. But if no
> one wants to hear it, that's okay.
<likewise nosarcasm>
With due respect, I must point out that smarter folks than you or I have been
debating this for millennia, so if it were indeed possible to prove that God
must exist, it would have been done long ago to everyone's satisfaction.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Does God have a name for God?
|
| (...) <nosarcasm here, either> I think the issue is that God is an issue of *faith*. And faith alone. Maybe it's just my opinion, but if God were to be *proven*, then the idea of God would kinda... lose its power. For me at least. I do believe in (...) (23 years ago, 31-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a name for God?
|
| Dave Schuler: (...) Lots (...) <nosarcasm> What I meant was that I can't really prove the *existence* of God, but I can prove that God *must exist* in order for anything else to exist. But if no one wants to hear it, that's okay. Regards, --Ryan (23 years ago, 31-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
