Subject:
|
Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 24 Dec 2000 19:41:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1382 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> 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?
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
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
