From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Evidence
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:56:22 MST

Message-Id: <9207101406.AA08091@oz.bmd.trw.com>
Date: 10 Jul 92 08:01:00 MST
From: JBROWN@doc.bmd.trw.com
Subject: Re: Evidence

X-News: doc alt.atheism:6548

>In article <1992Jul7.185725.16104@csrd.uiuc.edu| g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>|perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:
>|
>|[Discusssion of evidence, all of it testimony, deleted.]
>|
>|| |Whether this evidence is trustworthy or conclusive is perhaps another
>|| |(long) discussion.
>|
>|I, like Jim Perry, do not want to get into this discussion either.  I
>|simply had to pipe in when he suggested that there is no evidence for
>|the existence of God.  The statement is simply false, and I cringe
>|when I hear it.
>|
>|| | All I show here is the rediculousness of the idea
>|| |that there is no evidence, when evidence can be found in the most
>|| |popular book in the U.S.
>|
>||OK, I'll concede the trivial semantic point.
>|

>From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
>Date: 7 Jul 92 21:08:43 GMT
>Message-ID:<9914@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
>
>  I wont even go so far as to concede this trivial semantic point.
>  I don't consider the Bible to be evidence for the existence of God
>  any more than I consider a text on physics to be evidence for the
>  existence of gravity.  Simply writing down something in a book
>  does not qualify that something as evidence.  I could just as
>  easily write "the sky is red", but that would not mean there is
>  evidence that such is the case.  In the case of gravity, my
>  evidence comes from direct observation; I don't need to read about
>  to verify it's existence.

Dear Bob,
In the case of God, my evidence comes from direct observation/experience
of His power working in my life.  I simply know that God exists, the same
way that you know that gravity works.  But you are free to consider my
"knowledge" simply another uninformed opinion.  :)


>
>  Is Tolkien's work evidence for dwarves, elves, and hobbits?  Is
>  C.S. Lewis' work evidence for Narnia?  You get the point.

You cite works of fiction which *purport to be* works of fiction.  The
issue is far less clear with any work which claims to be a reflection of
reality or truth.  The Bible *claims* to be true, so it must be evaluated
on a more serious level than admitted fictional works.


>
>|You're entitled to your opinion, as I am mine.  However, when so many
>|people feel the testimonial evidence is compelling, the difference
>|between saying "there is no evidence" and "the evidence is no good" is
>|far from trivial.
>
>  Yet our own legal system realizes that hearsay is not admissable
>  in a court of law, which is exactly the type of "evidence" that
>  testimony exemplifies.  My mother is paranoid schizophrenic, and
>  can provide you with first hand testimony for any one of a number
>  of items, but I doubt you would call her word evidence.

How about first-hand testimony from one who is not, nor ever has been,
schizophrenic?


>
>|Just to overstate my point entirely, let's put it in another light.
>|Suppose I don't like the quality of the evidence for the world being
>|round (It's all a scam to keep NASA in business, you know :-|).  Would
>|you not object if I said there is no evidence for the idea?
>
>  But I can independently verify that there *is* evidence for a
>  round earth.  A ship appears to dip below the horizon as it recedes
>  from the shoreline, yet we know it doesn't fall of the edge.  I
>  could personally hire a high altitude pilot to take me up to view
>  the curvature of the earth firsthand if necessary.  Yet I cannot
>  devise any experiment that guarantees me evidence of the existence
>  of God.  To be considered evidence, facts must be independently
>  verifiable by someone other than him making the claim.  So far, I
>  have seen no such evidence from a single Christian.

But I can independently verify that there *is* evidence for God.

Suppose some unheard of terrorist organization announces a bomb threat.
Suppose a bomb actually goes off where they said it would.  Isn't this
*evidence* (not proof, *per se*) that there is a new terrorist group
behind the bombing?  One would be naive to discount such a possibility
prematurely.

In the Bible, God promises to bring the Jews back into Palestine in the
last days.  The Jews are now back in Palestine and in possession of
Jerusalem as God said they would be.  This is easily verified by looking
up relevant passages in Ezekial, Isaiah, Zechariah, and Daniel.  
Therefore, this is "verifiable evidence" for the existence of God.
The amount of weight that you wish to attach to this evidence is completely
up to you, but it remains evidence, nevertheless.

Regards, and have a nice day.

Jim

new address:  Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com

>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
>
>Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 
>
>"But writing is a legal way of avoiding work without actually
>stealing and one that doesn't take any talent or training."
>
>"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
>learn, eventually."
>
>  --Robert Heinlein

Yes, dying is not to be feared, if one has the assurance that God is
waiting to greet you on the other side.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism