Subject:
|
Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 23:51:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1238 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> A question (which I think I posed to TomS whose answer I can't seem to
> find in the slew) I would like any atheist or agnostic to discuss would be:
> what would it take for you to believe that God exists? The reason I ask is
> because, after having heard all of the arguments presented here, I am left
> with the impression that there is *nothing* that could make one believe
> in God. Is that a fair assessment?
Fair question. I can speak for no one else but myself, an agnostic who's
pretty convinced but not 100% certain there is no god. For myself, I would
require objective verifiable evidence. Alleged miracles, things that cannot
currently be explained other ways, testimony of others about their faith,
solipistic arguments and the like are insufficient. Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence.
I think the thesis of a number of us on both sides is that such objective
verifiable evidence is not possible to provide because of the very nature of
your god. Hence it's a preference issue.
Why do you ask?
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
