Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a name for God?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 1 Apr 2001 15:40:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
241 times
|
| |
|
|
No, we don't really want to hear it, as it has been argued to death in here.
You aren't going to convince us heathens that God MUST exist, as that simply
isn't so ;-)
Just read all the hundreds of other religious posts in here before you trample
plowed ground yet again.
Ryan Farrington wrote:
> 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.
>
> Regards,
> --Ryan
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
