Re: Carl Sagan's no evidence claim

Eduardo G. Moros (
Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:28:02 -0500

Paul certainly used nature, not to prove the existance of God per se, but to
declare an universal indictment of inexcusablility.

David et al., certainly viewed nature as God's work --> evidence & proof.

There is a cruel joke about a child who wanted a horse. For his B.D. his
evil step father thought to play a trick on him and wrapped a nice box full of
horse manure. When the child openned the box he was static with joy and
happiness. The evil step father completely perplexed and disconcerted because
of the child's reaction asked him in anger, what are you so happy about? The
child said smiling, "I got a horse for my B.D.!", the step father pointed to
the contents of the box and exclaimed, "that's manure", and the child answered
"what better evidence do I need? that's proof".

Ponder on it, the joke is not as straigth forward as it seems......


George Murphy wrote:
> Eduardo G. Moros wrote:
> >
> > YEah! In the movie when the lady scientist (Foster) says to the new-era
> > minister that there was no evidence for the existance of God, I just couldn't
> > stop thinking of psalm 19 and Romans 1. David and Paul were surely wondering
> > what else could God present as evidence of Himself without opting for the
> > "visions" that scared the heck out of the prophets (i.e., Isaias).
> "It is a remarkable thing that no canonical writer ever used
> nature as a proof of God's existence. All set out to convince us of it.
> But David, Solomon, and all the rest never said: `There is no void;
> therefore there is a God.' They must have been cleverer than the
> cleverest of their successors, every one of whom has used this argument.
> The fact is worth pondering on."
> Blaise Pascal, Pensee #6.
> (Forwarded by George Murphy)


Salu2 ------------------------------------------------------- Many times when reading "science" I have the annoying sensation I'm reading science fiction.