Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question from an agnostic
Message-ID: <May.10.05.07.02.1993.3419@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 10 May 93 09:07:03 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Lines: 18
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

Hi Damon,  No matter what system or explanation of creation you wish
to accept, you always have to start with one of two premises, creation
from nothing, or creation from something.  There are no other
alternatives.  And if we accept one or the other of those two
premises, then again there are two alternatives, either creation was
random, or was according to some plan.
   If it was random, I am unable to accept that the complex nature of
our world with interrelated interdependent organisms and creatures
could exist as they do.  Therefore I am left with creation under the
control of an intelligence capable of devising such a scheme.  I call
that intelligence God.
   I also prefer the "Creatio ex nihilo" rather than from chaos, as it
is cleaner.
   There is obviously no way to prove either or neither.  We are and
we must have come from somewhere.  Choose whatever explanation you
feel most comfortable with, Damon.  You are the one who has to live
with your choice.
Shalom,                                  Len Howard
