Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-edu1!hua
From: hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: net.miracles
Message-ID: <262@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 2-May-85 01:28:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-e.262
Posted: Thu May  2 01:28:40 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 4-May-85 02:17:55 EDT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 22

______________________________________________________________________

In several past articles, there have been a lot of readers posting
responses with the assumption that God exists in the first place
while responding to posts that question that existence.  There are
many others that deal with some other idea, such as miracles, rather
than the existence of God.  I will simply deal with the topic from
the existence of God arena, though this post applies to all others.

The most common reply consists of the basic statement:  "But you do
not have the right to ask God to reveal Himself to you.  It says in
the Bible ...  God will only reveal himself as He chooses."  This is
exactly what Rich Rosen is talking about.  The author assumes that
there is a God with X and Y characteristics.  Use that to reply and
to show that the original writer was wrong in asking for Z from God
to prove His existence because the already-assumed-to-be-existing
God does not provide proof on demand.  This is blatant circular
reasoning.
______________________________________________________________________

Live long and prosper.
Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }