Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site mako.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!mako!kene
From: kene@mako.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: A Question for Rich Rosen
Message-ID: <79@mako.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-Apr-84 06:06:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: mako.79
Posted: Sat Apr 28 06:06:11 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Apr-84 06:05:56 EDT
Sender: kene@mako.UUCP
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 24


I have read numerous articles from Rich condemning (debunking?) religion.  
These typically contain general statements to the effect of "there is no 
evidence that God exists" or "religion is a vane, outdated, superstitious
exercise for unsophisticated minds" or some such similar vein.  Statements 
to this effect spark my curiosity with regard to the following question, 
and I invite Rich (and anyone else who regards himself/herself in Rich's 
camp) to comment on it:

QUESTION:
What evidence would you LOOK FOR to convince you that God 
DOES (or at least COULD) exist?  

If you choose to respond to this question, I ask that your response be 
clear and specific as possible.  I have read lots of articles on the net 
by a number of people stating that they DON'T accept certain evidence as 
valid, and I'm wondering what evidence people WOULD accept.  


                                 Watching and Waiting,

                                   Ken Ewing 
                            [decvax,ucvax]!tektronix!mako!kene