mark (01/21/83)
i have the impression that discussions of the existance of God are generally precisly that: resolved: that The Christian God exists. one who argues pro in such a case has half the battle won. he need not show that there is only one god, or that the one god is in fact HIS god. he can get away with assuming that much of the nature of his god is proven, and his opponent is handicapped insofar as it does not occur to him to question that nature. (of course, since that assumption is tacit, it is likely that the two have quite different notions of the character of the subject of the god. this has happened to me more than once). if one avoids this trap, i suspect that one may come up with many interesting counter-examples to christianity (or whatever), eg. there is a god, who does reward "the good" with a heaven, but following the bible (by whatever creed) is the wrong way to go; it was in fact devised to lead people away from the light. not being a philosopher or historian, i am probably re-inventing the wheel here, but i enjoy such stuff anyway. not afraid of signs in the sky mARK bLOORE univ. of toronto this should really have gone in net.misc. or is there a net.religion?