Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Believing In God
Message-ID: <571@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 19:01:00 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.571
Posted: Wed Feb 20 19:01:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 20:44:10 EST
References: <642@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 47

> What if there were a Large Monolith discovered on one of the outer planets
> that had engraved on it in 2000 earth languages "Greetings from God", would
> that make it easier for you to believe in Him?  Would that make it too easy?

But there isn't one, is there?  (Not that you've seen, anyway, unless you're
more well-traveled than I presume :-)  The fact that you pose the question at
all seems to indicate that you wonder why *I* (i.e., *anyone* who chooses not
to believe) chooses not to believe.  When an assumption is ingrained in a
mindset, it's often hard to understand why others don't hold it also.  Such
assumptions are the ones that one should always examine closely.

> My personal belief is that God chooses many ways to reveal himself to mankind
> but Totally Objective Evidence (TOEs) is NOT one such method because He
> chooses for us to exercise our "faith", our "hope", and above all our "love".

Let's seriously examine this statement.  Is it that Merrill has had real
information provided to him indicating that there is a god who fits the
description he offers, or has he formulated this notion that, since he
believes that god MUST exist (presuming in advance), builds a definition of
god such that god's "not wanting" to reveal itself explicitly is perceived
as a REASON for the lack of evidence?  In other words, does god really fit
the mold that Merrill has built, or has he built a mold that *accounts for*
the lack of totally objective evidence, by fitting the claim that "god doesn't
want us to have proof, he wants us to have faith" into the mold as an after the
fact "explanation"?

("My god has no TOEs."  "How do you know he exists?"  "...")  :-)

> If you could choose HOW God would reveal himself to you personally, what would
> it be?  Like George Burns' "God" He would be invisible, inaudible, and perhaps
> incomprehensible to anyone but yourself: personal and subjective.

First of all, you ask *me* to choose, and then you *tell* me what it's going to
be like!!!!  Secondly, since so many people experience god in this way, and
since so many people still wind up with completely different perspectives on
the universe (often accusing those with other perspectives of being misled),
and since these completely different perspectives often result in bloody
conflict, torture, repression, and death, *IF* (and this IS an assumption)
the god we are talking about exists and is benevolent, I'd venture that 1) this
personal subjective perspective interconflict is not its doing, and 2) that
what was perceived as god in one's personal subjective perspective was not god
at all, despite one's desire to believe that that's so.

Comments?
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr