ccc@cwruecmp.UUCP (12/21/83)
I have always found religious debate interesting because so many of those who debate a religious subject argue without first considering the underlying assumptions of their religions. To have a religious belief you must start with the assumption that the deity exists. As far as I know it is currently impossible to prove this assumption from outside a religion. No experiment has yet been devised that will provide reproducible data concerning the existence (or non-existence of a deity). Thus argument is pointless unless you try to get people to agree that a religion is correct due to its great reliability in prediction and in its records of past history (see articles by Dave Norris). Unfortunately, this is not a logically acceptable method. Not many people currently believe in the ancient Greek pantheon but historically supported stories do exist (ref. TROY, HERACLES). The parrallel in christianity would be the Flood, and the miracles of Christ to take a modern religious example. Agreement on the existence of a deity though is not enough though. Witness:Catholicism, Judaism, and Murphy. I can make an argument based upon the 'fact' that 2=1 but to do so is pointless to most people since to get 2=1 I had to violate the assumption that n/0 is undefined. Thus we can argue all we want about certain points and still get nowhere. Example: If the Bible is God's (and I use the term loosely) word then it is true that God created mankind. argue: evolution. answer: you can't because to do so would violate assumption one. This does not mean that religious debate is pointless it just limits the scope to discussions of the contradictions in internal logic. Aydin Edguer decvax!cwruecmp!ccc "If man was meant to have a religion he would never have needed one."