>>> Part 2 of 2...
 
 MB>  If it rains,
 MB>  do you say the sky is deceitful because it must be sunny instead?
 MB>  If gravity keeps the heaviest elements below us, and the lighter
 MB>  ones above us, do you say gravity is lying?  No, gravity tells the
 MB>  truth, it is honest, and its purpose is understood.  God made it that
 MB>  way.
 RT> Provide evidence that god made it that way.
 
 Because it IS that way!  What other evidence must there BE?!?!?!?!  
 Whatever IS, it IS.  The very name of God is the "I AM" - the very
 verb which defines our reality:  "TO BE"!  
 
 That which IS, is God.  Period.  Finito.  That's the only proof there
 is.  It is what the Hebrews took so much for granted that there never
 was a question - what is IS.   If its raining, its raining, if its
 sunny its sunny, if its 186000 miles per second, then its 186000 miles
 per second - what is, IS, what is TO BE, is TO BE.  That is the _name_ 
 of God: I AM, I WAS, I WILL BE, all in the form of the verb TO BE.
 
 If the universe has existed in infinite time - never with a beginning -
 then that's WHAT IS, and if it began with a Big Bang, then that's 
 WHAT IS.  And whatever it IS, it is because that is what it is [to be];
 and thus, is [the essence of God].  I cannot explain that which must
 of a necessity be comprehended by your consciousness at its most
 elementary level.  Whether or not you believe there is a God, is not
 at issue - nor is it an issue whether or not He evidences Himself -
 because He is evidence by the things which exist - even if this
 is not accepted by the scientific mind, or the mind which understands
 what "natural selection" means, if you follow me.  But that those
 things which do exist, and we measure them with our senses, determining
 the temperature of a gas at sea-level, or the density of a distant
 star, or its chemical composition, or its distance, or the age of
 the earth, or the force of gravity, or the strong nuclear force:
 if we measure them - and if our measurements are true and SINCE WE
 TAKE NOTICE OF PEER REVIEW, then all scientists BY DEFAULT accept
 that peer review will demonstrate either consistency or inconsistency.
 If consistent - then the hypotheses ARE CONFIRMED, and the inconsistencies
 are relegated to human error or some other accident - then BY DEFAULT
 the scientist has accepted WHAT IS, and therefore the existence of God.
 Otherwise, peer review would MEAN NOTHING AT ALL, because _EVERYTHING_
 would be accidental, nothing would be found CONSISTENT.  This is
 perfectly understood in my own mind.  Why is this so difficult to
 understand?  If one day the velocity of light was one thing, and the
 next something else - that would be evidence to me that God did NOT
 exist.  If one trip around our sun took 365.4 days, and the next too
 2 hours - THAT would be evidence that God did NOT exist.  I cannot
 accept an ordered universe without God. 
 
 
... Brace your self, worse attacks on your reason are coming along.
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------