Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!qantel!ihnp4!cbatt!clyde!caip!ucla-cs!topaz!ll-xn!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc3!za56
From: za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill)
Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Epiphany, Mr. Ed, and the Ghost of Marley
Message-ID: <1231@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 5-Sep-86 22:24:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: curly.1231
Posted: Fri Sep  5 22:24:04 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Sep-86 00:19:58 EDT
References: <5111@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Reply-To: za56@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill)
Followup-To: net.origins
Distribution: na
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 119

In article <5111@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.dec.com writes:
>
>On net.origins a dude and I have been goin' round and round about what WOULD
>'prove' that God exists, etc. etc.  I say, that like anything else, there is
>a 'weight of evidence' to consider in making a decision about the existence of
>God.  MY starting place is the HYPOTHESIS that the God of the Bible might exist,

Why should I hypothesize that the God of the Bible exists any more
than I should hypothesize that the Homeric gods exist when reading
Homer?  I have read the Bible, and there is nothing in it that makes
me feel such a hypothesis would be valid, any more than the Homeric
gods.  If I were to follow your suggestion, I would have to
hypothesize the Norse gods, the Native american Gods, etc. because I
don't feel any of them are any more likely than the Xian god, and
therefore should examine them all evenly. 

>THEN I start to look at the evidence that the men who left us the record of
>their supposed experiences with God have claimed as 'proof' of it. 
>I do NOT start with the ASSUMPTION that God exists.  This, by the way, is why
>such a tactic - starting with the assumption and looking at the records - is not
>'circular reasoning' as some have claimed.  I don't start with the assumption
>that the Bible is the Word of God!!!!!  I have come to that conclusion after
>starting from the HYPOTHESIS that it might be and examining the EVIDENCE  that
>those who wrote