Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version 1.0 Netnews CMS/BITNET; site PSUVM.BITNET
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!psuvax1!psuvm!v6m
From: V6M@PSUVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: to Keebler from Marchionni
Message-ID: <1646V6M@PSUVM>
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 14:50:21 EST
Article-I.D.: PSUVM.1646V6M
Posted: Tue Mar 12 14:50:21 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Mar-85 03:42:59 EST
Lines: 59

<>
Dear Keebler,


I haven't forgot about you or miracles or the supernatural.

I came across a good apolgetics book circa 1958 (Theological Happy Days:-) )

that is useful BUT unfortunatly some of the basic arguments appeal to
the dispelling of reasonable doubt.  If the reader is entirely convinced
that God and therfore the supernatural are non-existant then NO MATTER
what the apologeticist says will have no affect NO MATTER how persuasive
the philosophical or metaphysical arguments.
From the tone of your articles I am fairly convinced that you are as
committed to your position as I am to mine.

I've been mulling over my postings and I see no great problems with them
given what Christians use as reasonable arguments and reasonable evidence.

Indeed the miracles at Lourdes and St.Anne's in Quebec ARE offered as
evidence of God, The Virgin  and the Spirit and of course Christ  since
the Virgin was His mother.

Most books on apologetics are LENGTHY with great care used to shore up
even minor points of deduction and/or inference.  Since I can't write a book
nor could I post one the reader needs to bear with short explanations
occassionally filling a few blanks.

I do the same for the opposition.

Now short of inventing a God-meter or finding a spot on earth where we can
cross to the other side AND RETURN to tell about it, there is nothing I can
do prove to you Physically that any of it is true.  I don't think that you
will accept any metaphysical argument.

BTW since the concept of soul is popping up again, the fact that man can
explain his OBSERVED nature very elegantly and simply with the existence of
a soul does many things:
1. the soul if it exists, needs to be supernatural
2. a soul, being supernatural, cannot have been created by man
3. a soul must have been created by another supernatural being


Who is right?  Let us observe man.

The Christian aplogeticist explanation describes man accurately now and in
the past and seems still to be consistent for future use.  Even as more
physio-chemical knowledge is known about the brain, the conflict
between mind and brain and being INTENSIFIES.  Our position is still
consistent.

I'm sticking with ours until the atheist can experimentally verify that
the soul and therfore the supernatural DOES NOT exist.

I'll keep looking but I think that I am wasting my time.
How about giving me a hint on some sort of evidence that you would accept?
It will make my research easier.

Marchionni