Subject:
|
Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 23 Dec 2000 01:48:11 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.&nomorespam&net
|
Viewed:
|
1139 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 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.
Remember though, that that kind of evidence is by definition not possible, so
it's true that there would be no way to convince you.
> 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?
I was just thinking that, if I were God, how *would* I convince you that I
existed? (and how much LEGO I would have;-)
-John
> ++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
|
|
|
|
