From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 06:14:31 GMT

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.713175264@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>}m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>}
>}>In article <sbuckley.712399013@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>}>}James Meritt writes:
>}>}>Stephen Buckley writes:
>}>}>}  have you thought about what kind of evidence you would need to believe 
>}>}>}that god does exist?  if so, what do you require?
>}>}
>}>}>Can you precisely define what "god" you are talking about?  It is rather
>}>}>difficult to provide evidence for and tests to validate an ambigious
>}>}>concept.
>}>}
>}>}  i am talking about god of the bible whose fundamental characteristics
>}>}[found in the bible] are that he created the universe and us, that he will
>}>}sometime end time and history as we know it, that he is all good, holy so 
>}>}he cannot co-exist with sin, just so he must punish sin, and all loving so
>}>}he sent his son to redeem us and pay the price for our sin so we may 
>}>}return to be with him.  this is the christian god of the bible.
>}>}
>}>}  does this help?
>}
>}>Well, that would serve as a lead in for the hypothesis testing.  If something
>}>in the reference you gave (for instance, the KJV) were to be contrary to
>}>the description from the same reference, standard predicate logic methods for
>}>proofs would indicate that the initial hypothesis (that THIS god exists)
>}>would be false.  And since such contradictions appear to exist, the conclusion
>}>that THAT specific god exists does not follow.
>}
>}  well taking the bible out of the context of even its plot development would
>}lead to contradictions.  but most rational christians can show the context of
>}contradictions that appear to be so.  also, nit-picking here, contradictiosn
>}would have to do more than *appear* to exist for you to deny the consistent
>}nature of god.

>How do you tell?  Objectively?  From what I have seen, if it agrees with
>your position it is fine, but if it doesn't it is a "taken out of context".
>Unfortunately, there exist examples of contradictions that include such
>things as numbers.  It is hard to support the claim that "there are 5 X"
>and "there are 6 X" when "X" refers to the same thing are terribly context
>sensitive.  Next, how do you differentiate between "appear" and "is"?

>}>Or if you prefer a more direct, define (in a non-circular manner) what "good",
>}>"holy", "sin", and "loving" mean then see if your stated reference indicates
>}>if the postulated entity (Yahweh) fits the description.  In my opinion, it
>}>dies not.  I find activity which, if performed by humans, is described as
>}>"Evil", "unholy", "sinful" and "not loving" being performed by the diety
>}>described (mostly in the OT).  Unfortunately for your apparent position, the
>}>NT claims the same diety as the OT (in spite of rather massive differences
>}>in activity and stated positions).
>}
>}  god created the universe and is justified in judging it however he wants.
>}all the non-loving activities like letting a generation of non-believing
>}israelites die in the desert are explained.  the most important context
>}and plot development in the bible is that the old testament is fulfilled in
>}the new testament.  god's actions based on his people's disobedience in 
>}the old testament are superceded by the new covenant with all people in
>}jesus.  all who accept jesus will know god.  all else won't.  your above
>}paragraph reflects taking the bible out of context.

>Yawn.  As I said, the term "good" doesn't apply.  And you in your amplification
>noted that.  Hence, your initial description is BY YOUR OWN MEASURE irrelevant.

>}>unambigiously confirmed.
>}
>}  true, god's existence is unverifiable thus empirical logic cannot support
>}or deny his existence.  that's why it's important to look to more than
>}logic to decide upon god.

>So why did you make such a silly initial request if you claim to know that it
>cannot be answered?

  well i don't think it's silly and i'm sorry you did.  the question
was offered partly rhetorically.  initially i hoped this discussion would
proceed to the point [similar as it did] where we'd realize that if you
want to decide about god, you have to look to more than science.  faith
is critical.

---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc