za56@sdcc3.UUCP (09/04/86)
In article <5111@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.dec.com writes: > >On net.origins a dude and I have been goin' round and round about what WOULD >'prove' that God exists, etc. etc. I say, that like anything else, there is >a 'weight of evidence' to consider in making a decision about the existence of >God. MY starting place is the HYPOTHESIS that the God of the Bible might exist, Why should I hypothesize that the God of the Bible exists any more than I should hypothesize that the Homeric gods exist when reading Homer? I have read the Bible, and there is nothing in it that makes me feel such a hypothesis would be valid, any more than the Homeric gods. If I were to follow your suggestion, I would have to hypothesize the Norse gods, the Native american Gods, etc. because I don't feel any of them are any more likely than the Xian god, and therefore should examine them all evenly. >THEN I start to look at the evidence that the men who left us the record of >their supposed experiences with God have claimed as 'proof' of it. >I do NOT start with the ASSUMPTION that God exists. This, by the way, is why >such a tactic - starting with the assumption and looking at the records - is not >'circular reasoning' as some have claimed. I don't start with the assumption >that the Bible is the Word of God!!!!! I have come to that conclusion after >starting from the HYPOTHESIS that it might be and examining the EVIDENCE that >those who wrote it, making their claim that they are recording words from >God, are justified in such claims that it is the 'word of God' or not. > >He demands proof (without, I might add, defining what would BE 'proof' for him - >care to step forward with such a definition please?) Incontrovertible evidence that logically leads to the only solution being God's divinity. Example: a voice speaks, predicting all that would happen within a 24-hour period to me, including some pretty odd things. 2nd example: divine revelation of the divinity of God (not logical, but sure as hell convincing) If I were suddenly made aware that God existed, I would accept God, even the Xian God, which I consider a nice concept, but I find logically contradictory (see discussions on omniscience/omnipotence/omnibenevolence). >from God of God's existence >before he will believe such a thing. I replied to him that NOTHING could prove >to him the existence of God since he would interpret every 'proof' as something >other than convincing evidence - just so someone who doesn't believe in ghosts >upon seeing one would retreat to the concept of 'illusion' or some such. Wrong. If somebody could prove to me logically (or thru divine revelation, but as explained before, revelation is only revelation to those who hear it firsthand...to all else, it is second/third/etc hand information/hearsay) that God exists, fine, I would worship him. Nobody has yet to provide any logical proof for God's exitance that can't be simply diproven to me. If you know of one, please submit it...I would like to see it (really). >I >suspect he has the ASSUMPTION that there is no God as a starting point. Which >is just as weak as starting with the assumption that there is a God. > Correct. Why? Because there are so many possible Gods (an infinite number, in fact) I do not have the time (:^) to examine each one, obviously, therefore I start with the simplest possibility, and the one that seems most likely to me, that there is no god(s). >The Epiphany you will recall is the revelation to the Gentiles (Wise Men) that >Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, 'God with us'. The claim of the Bible is that >God has revealed himself to us in the person of his Son, Jesus as recorded in >the experiences of those who knew him and left the historical records. > Fine. As mentioned above, if He reveals himself to me, I will convert, till then, I stay a member of the "A" division. >But on to Mr. Ed. The dialogue goes like this: > >[digest follows] A large discussion follows, intended to point out that the reason God does not talk to us is that he will only talk to somebody who has already accepted Him. This seems to me to be a rather petty way to act, not in keeping with the God as described in the Bible. With his omnipotence, one would think it was an easy matter for God to put the truth of the matter into our "souls" and show us for once and for all. In any case, I find this argument to be rather unconvincing. >. . . . > >Are Wilbur Post and Mr. Scrooge more enlightened than some of our merry netters? > Remember...both of them had DIRECT revelation. Wilbur HEARD his horse talking, and so knew he could talk. Scrooge SAW the ghost, and thus knew it existed. I have neither SEEN nor HEARD any [G,g]od(s), and thus are situations are somewhat different. Find a better analogy Ken. >Keep chargin' > >Ken Arndt > > Isn't it curious how the majority of people take on the religion of their community? I mean, were you Chinese, its a fairly good bet that you'd be either Buddhist, Confuscian, or Hindu. Were you in he Middle East, you'd probably be Jewish or Muslim, etc. This seems to indicate, to me at least, that religion is a matter of enviroment, not faith, nor truth. I mean, if there were any truth to the matter, one would think there would be only ONE religion, or that all religions would bear a great similarity to one another, and that is not what we find. This simple fact seems to me to be one of the greatest diproofs of the religions in question, that there be competing religions. /-----------------------------------------------------------\ | Brian McNeill ARPA : za56@sdcc3.ucsd.edu | | HASA "A" Division UUCP : ...!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc3!za56 | |-----------------------------------------------------------| | Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim all knowledge of opinions, | | expressed or implied, including this disclaimer. | | Flames ---> /dev/null | \-----------------------------------------------------------/
za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill) (09/06/86)
In article <5111@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.dec.com writes: > >On net.origins a dude and I have been goin' round and round about what WOULD >'prove' that God exists, etc. etc. I say, that like anything else, there is >a 'weight of evidence' to consider in making a decision about the existence of >God. MY starting place is the HYPOTHESIS that the God of the Bible might exist, Why should I hypothesize that the God of the Bible exists any more than I should hypothesize that the Homeric gods exist when reading Homer? I have read the Bible, and there is nothing in it that makes me feel such a hypothesis would be valid, any more than the Homeric gods. If I were to follow your suggestion, I would have to hypothesize the Norse gods, the Native american Gods, etc. because I don't feel any of them are any more likely than the Xian god, and therefore should examine them all evenly. >THEN I start to look at the evidence that the men who left us the record of >their supposed experiences with God have claimed as 'proof' of it. >I do NOT start with the ASSUMPTION that God exists. This, by the way, is why >such a tactic - starting with the assumption and looking at the records - is not >'circular reasoning' as some have claimed. I don't start with the assumption >that the Bible is the Word of God!!!!! I have come to that conclusion after >starting from the HYPOTHESIS that it might be and examining the EVIDENCE that >those who wrote