re the arrogance of christians in article geneva rutgers edu gt b prism gatech edu boundary writes dleonar andy bgsu edu pixie writes deletia sig p s if you do sincerely believe that a god exists why do you follow it blindly do the words question authority mean anything to you i defy any theist to reply deletia formalities i probably should let this pass it s not worth the time and it s not really intended for me but i couldn t resist a personal weakness of mine jerkius kneeus tragically incurable the foundation for faith in god is reason without which the existence of god could not be proven that his existence can be proven by reason is indisputable cf my short treatise traditional proofs for the existence of god and summa theologica not so i can prove that the existance of god is disputable by showing that people dispute it this is easy i dispute that god exists simple i missed your traditional proofs treatise but the proofs i remember from the summa theologic the ways i think it was were rather poor stuff the ontological argument is about a billion times better imho i would think you d want non traditional proofs considering the general failure of the traditional proofs at least the ones i know of i am thinking of the ontological argument the cosmological argument and the teleological argument those are the ones traditional enough to have funny names anyway now given that god exists and that his existence can be proven by reason i assert that his commands must be followed blindly although in our fallen condition we must always have some measure of doubt about our faith why this is the real question so to discuss it i ll assume god exists otherwise there is no heavenly authority to babble about because god is the first cause of all things the first mover of matter the independent thing that requires nothing else for its existence the measure of all that is perfect and the essential being who gives order to the universe logos please show this is the case i am familiar with the first cause argument and i ll accept for the sake of argument that there is a first cause even though i find some of its premices questionable the rest you ll have to show this includes that the first cause is god i next assert that god is all good got it i deny that god is all good so there if this is so then that which is contrary to the will of god is evil i e the absence of the good and since god can never contradict himself then by his promise of a savior as early as the protoevangelium of genesis god instructs that because a human adam was first responsible for man s alienation from the source of all good a man would be required to act to restore the friendship thus god became incarnate in the person of the messiah this isn t self consistent if humans must renew the relationship then god incarnate or not can t do it well unless you think god is human granted god made himself human but this is nonetheless cheating the intent of the statement is clearly that man has to fix the problem he caused god fixing it even by indirect means contradicts this now this messiah claimed that he is the truth john if this claim is true then we are bound by reason to follow him who is truth incarnate why also why assume said claim is true anyway if i claim to be truth are you bound by reason to follow me you next seem to have a problem with authority have you tried the united states marine corps yet i can tell you first hand that it is an excellent instructor in authority undoubtably do you mean to imply we should all obey the commands of the marines without question you seem to imply this about god and that the marines are similar in this respect if this is not what you are trying to say they please explain what it is you are saying as i have missed it if you have not yet had the privilege i will reply that the authority which is truth incarnate may never be questioned and thus must be followed blindly why why not question it even if it is truth we cannot know this certainly so why is it so irrational to question perhaps we will thus discover that we were wrong you assert that god is truth and we can t question truth but i assert that god is not truth and anyway we can question truth how is it my assertion is less good than yours one may not deny the truth oh i hereby deny i hope you ll agree is the truth granted i look pretty damn silly saying something like that but i needed something we d both agree was clearly true now you ll notice no stormtroopers have marched in to drag me off to the gulag no heaven lighting bolts either no mysterious net outages i seem to be permited to say such things absurd or not for example when the proverbial apple fell on isaac newton s head he could have denied that it happened but he did not the laws of physics must be obeyed whether a human likes them or not they are true they are certainly not true at least the ones newton derived are not true and are indeed wildly inaccurate at high speeds or small distances we do not have a set of laws of physics that always works in all cases if we did physics would be over already science is all about questioning this sort of truth if we didn t we d still follow aristotle i d generalize this a little more if you want to learn anything new you must question the things you know tm because you can always be wrong therefore the authority which is truth may not be denied even presupposing that truth may not be denied and may not be questioned and that god is truth it only follows that god may not be denied or questioned not that he must be obeyed we could unquestioningly disobey him how annoying of us but you have not connected denial with disobedience dan no nickname johnson and god said jeeze this is dull and it was dull genesis these opinions probably show what i know
