Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!ima!haddock!jimc
From: jimc@haddock.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Believing in God
Message-ID: <358@haddock.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Feb-85 00:03:20 EST
Article-I.D.: haddock.358
Posted: Thu Feb 21 00:03:20 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 04:28:13 EST
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #N:haddock:21800006:000:1207
Nf-From: haddock!jimc    Feb 20 17:41:00 1985

I would also like to know what is meant by "objective evidence" of God's
existence, anyway.  There cannot be such a thing.   The example of
the monoliths is a good one;  or, try this:  if you were to see an angel
appear to you and tell you that there is a God and that He loves you,
would that convince you that there really is a God?  That angel could
be anything:  a hallucination or an alien being, for example.

You see, the only proof of God's existence is God Himself.  No one
can produce God in His Infinity to offer as "objective evidence."

Some people, as is their right, have assumed that God does not exist
because He is not proven.  That assumption falters seriously when
one realizes that He cannot be proven.

I, too, believe that God wishes us to find Him through our faith.
It seems there is no other way.  I suppose one can make the argument
that God could have planted the certainty of His existence into our
minds at the moment of birth, so that we would not raise any questions.
Still, that would prove nothing except that we believed in Him.
Is it not scientifically reasonable to assume that such a tendency would
have evolved naturally and with no intervention from a divine force?