To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 8395
8394  |  8396
Subject: 
Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sun, 24 Dec 2000 19:33:34 GMT
Viewed: 
3527 times
  
John Neal wrote:

> David Eaton 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?
> > 
> > Sadly, I fear the answer is just about yes, going by what I think you define
> > as God.
> > 
> > But really what we've got to do is define 'God' first, because I may be
> > wrong. In fact, depending on what you define as 'God', I may in fact already
> > believe in His existence. Perhaps you could expound?
> 
> I would simply define God as a single Entity which created the universe.  We
> all instinctively long to be united with that Entity.

Do we?  What makes you think this?



> > But in the meanwhile, I'm forced to say no, no event could "convince" me
> > 100% of what I think you mean by a God. I cannot conceive of an event that
> > would make be believe so, as I would be inclined to believe an alternative
> > explanation remaining unknown was the cause. Lar suggested miracles, but to
> > quote someone-or-other, 'Technologies yet unknown and unconcieved of by
> > someone are indescernable from magic.'
> > 
> > However, there could be events that would make be BELIEVE, without being
> > 100% sure. For instance, let's say that God, because He wanted to, sought to
> > prove to me that He existed. And so he appeared in front of me, and asked me
> > to test his existence by making me fly or making me read someone's mind, or
> > letting me travel through time, or by Him making me suddenly think something
> > or some such ridiculous event. But again, even this wouldn't convince me
> > 100%... One could still argue the absurd that my brain is sitting in a vat
> > somewhere with sensory inputs in it making me experience whatever it is I
> > experience without the existence of a Christian 'God'.
> 
> Dude, you are one serious skeptic! :-)


Skepticism is GOOD.

However, I don't think cynicism is good ;-)


--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support          Netscape Communications Corp
|      Please do not associate my personal views with my employer



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
 
(...) I think science/society seeks to understand "creation". I don't think being united with creation is really a global aim. That said, could it not be argued that we are part of creation? Scott A (26 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
 
(...) I would simply define God as a single Entity which created the universe. We all instinctively long to be united with that Entity. I would then go on to state that that Entity entered time and space in the human form of Jesus Christ, in order (...) (26 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR