In a deposition submitted under oath, Mark Bloss said:
 MB>> Because it takes faith to believe in Him, and to evidence
 MB>> Himself would mean that God somehow must prove Himself,
 BS> I "evidence myself" to people daily, my family, friends,
 BS> coworkers, the clerk at the convenience store where I buy gas, etc.,
 BS> and yet I don't do it because I have to prove myself to them.  Why is
 BS> it different for God?
 MB>  Because you are a part of the natural world - the physical
 MB> manifestation  of reality - God is "outside" the natural world, and
 MB> the physical
 MB>  manifestation of reality is _from_ God; therefore, the physical
 MB> reality  _is_ evidence of God;
    Only if you first accept the premise that God exists.  Therefore
 you've merely laid out a circular argument, which is invalid.
 MB> but for any formal system (F), (F) cannot prove itself.
    Huh?  I can prove myself.  Drive over to my house, I'll prove myself
 to you.  Again, why can't/won't God do the same?
 MB>> so that I would
 MB>> then not need faith to believe in Him.  If He proved Himself so
 MB>> that faith is not required to believe in Him, then His purpose
 MB>> for me is diminished, ie, I do not develop faith, which is an
 MB>> attribute _of_ God.
 BS> Why does God need this attribute?  What is there for Him to have
 BS> faith in?
 MB>  God does not "need" this attribute - he _has_ it.  If He did not have
 MB>  it, He would not be God.
    Why?  And is that biblical?
 MB>  MB>> He exists because it would be impossible for my limited
 MB>  MB>>  imagination to understand a universe _without_ God.
 BS> God's existence or non-existence does not hinge on the strength or
 BS> weakness of your imagination.  He is either there or he isn't,
 BS> independent of you.
 MB>  And if His existence is independent of me and my imagination - then
 MB>  he MUST exist; 
    The latter does not necessarily flow from the former.  Otherwise I
 could say a pink-spotted, three-legged, purple rhinoceros lives in the
 left nostril of the Face on Mars, and it MUST exist because its
 existence is independent of my imagination.
 MB>  because whatever is greater than my imagination can
 MB>  concieve, _is_ God.   Of all things that exist, or imagined - my
 MB>  conciousness will always be able to concieve something greater;
 MB>  and because we cannot have an infinite progression, there must be a
 MB>  God.
    I'm not going to argue Descartes' proof.  But that isn't the same as
 saying God exists because your imagination can't handle the
 alternative.  Plenty of people can and do imagine a universe without
 God.
 MB>  Regardless of these prerequisites, I can say, that I believe that the
 MB>  requirment of faith is a given; if on the one hand science requires
 MB>  physical evidence, and on the other hand faith requires that one
 MB> should  never hold any possibility as being impossible.
 BS> But that leaves one open to believing anything.  How does one
 BS> choose what to believe and what to disbelieve, as far as things
 BS> requiring faith?
 MB>  The best test for belief is what has historically and experientially
 MB>  _worked_ best; and the best record we have of the historical and
 MB>  experimental, is the Bible.
    That's a subjective test, the results of which are subjective and
 inconclusive at best, with a rather biased record.
... Faigh an gleas.
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------