virus: God

Eric Boyd (
Tue, 09 Dec 1997 18:40:19 -0500

Hi Marie,

you wrote:
> Eric... I do not have ANY problem with proof. I have asked
> here a number of times of different individuals as to what
> proof they would need? So far none has responded. Perhaps
> this approach would get us closer to understanding. You see,
> I think it is our concept of what god is or means that may
> be the problem in understanding. (BTW all the proof I need
> is 65 AND 14. I will let you sort that out.)

I've often thought about what would constitute "proof" as well... I think
the first thing that is needed, as you seem to indicate you know, is a
definition. What is God?

>From there, it should be possible to decide on what would count as evidence
for such a thing -- if it is capable of doing "miracles" (violating the
laws of physics, for example), then I expect to be shown such. If there
are stories about this God, then I expect to be able to verify the truth of
those stories (the Flood comes to mind). And finally, if it is a personal
God, I do expect to be able to "engage" such a God any time I want -- see
responses to prayers, feel God's presence in my life, etc.

Since I've never found a God who can do any of those (heck, I've never
found a God at all!) I see no reason to believe.

65 AND 14 = 79. That can't be what you mean. Maybe it's ages -- puberty
et all. 65 though? How does that show the existence of God anyway? I
think I see -- if God is "the creative force" inside us, and child birth is
the ultimate creation (life), then God is revealed to you by the "miracle"
of babies!

I can respect that.

What else could 65 AND 14 mean? Sorry -- I enjoy riddles, but this is just
too little information!