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 (Arthur Pewtey)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (1 of 4)
Message-ID: <1018@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-May-85 19:49:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1018
Posted: Fri May 31 19:49:45 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Jun-85 03:39:27 EDT
References: <2006@decwrl.UUCP> <749@rayssd.UUCP> <323@scgvaxd.UUCP> <324@scgvaxd.UUCP> <325@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association
Lines: 24
Keywords: Reliability of The New Testament

Dan Boskovich offers what he calls "objective evidences" of Christianity.  Are
they what he claims?  Of course not.  They are as presumptive as any proofs
that came before it:  if you already believe there to be a god of the form you
would like, if you already accept the Bible as the word of god, it all makes
sense.  If not, if you choose to think first and shirk a few assumptions, well,
let's see.

> 		    Reliability of The New Testament

Like McDowell and Lewis before him, Boskovich claims that because the Bible
exists as a long standing, "reliable" document, it thus (??) must be the word
of god.  This only "follows logically" if you already believe it.  And, of
course, you must already believe in the existence of god to believe that the
Bible is his word.  Where do you get evidence of that?  In the Bible, of course!

The following three go into more detail about the remaining parts of Dan's
tetralogy.  I would hope that Dan would want to include these comments in
his pamphlet as a rebuttal so as to really give a semblance of objectiveness
to the work.  I doubt though that it is really his intention to be objective,
only to prove his conclusion at any cost.  This is apparent from the nature
of his evidence, as documented in the next three articles.
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr