In a previous article, phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au () says:  >In article <Apr.13.00.08.07.1993.28379@athos.rutgers.edu>, aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes: >> To demand scintific or rational proof of God's existence, is to deny >> God's existence, since neither science, nor reason, can, in their very >> nature, prove anything. > >Are you asking us to believe blindly?  You are trying to deny that part of >us that makes us ask the question "Does God exist?" i.e. self-awareness and >reason.  If we do not use our ability to reason we become as ignorant >as the other animals on this earth.  Does God want us to be like that? > I am asking you to believe in things not visible. I don't know if this is believeing blindly or not. I'm not sure how blindness comes into it. I do not deny reason, indeed I insist upon it, but reason only draws conclusions from evidence. If you decide in advance that your reason will act only on the evidence of the five physical senses, then you cut reason off from any possibility of reaching a conclusion outside the physical sphere (beyond the rather provocative, if inconclusive, conclusion that the physical sphere is not self explanatory).   Christians claim that they have received a different kind of evidence,  which they call faith, and which is a gift of God. That is, this evidence is the evidence of a thing which chooses to reveal or hide itself. The  evidence of the senses cannot tell you is such a ting exists. Reasoning on the evidence of the senses won't help either. But Christians do reason of the evidence of faith, and do claim that this evidence is wholly consistent with the evidence of the other senses, and indeed, that the evidence of these other senses is part of God's revelation of himself to us.  It is not necessarilly the case however that knowledge of a God must come through this route. There may be other senses than the physical ones providing evidence of non-physical realities. (There may, of course, be physical realities of a type for which we have no corresponding senses, for all we know.) These senses, if they exist, may provide valid evidence for reason to work on. And, as with all senses, these senses may be impaired in some people, that is, they may be spiritually blind. In this sense, belief in God becomes an act of sight, and it is disbelief which is blind.  >You are right that science and reason cannot PROVE anything.  However, if >we do not use them we can only then believe on FAITH alone.  And since >we can only use faith, why is one picture of "God" (e.g. Hinduism) any less >valid than another (e.g. Christianity)? > Faith, as I have said, is not opposed to reason, it is simply a new source  of evidence on which reason may operate. It is clear that human beings have many systems for explaining the evidence of the physical senses, and similarly there are many systems for explaining the evidence provided by faith. Religious believers in general, and Christians in particular, use reason to help sift through the evidence to come to a clearer understanding of the evidence provided by faith. Science claims, with good reason, to be the most valid system for explaining the physical universe, and Christianity claims, also with good reason, to be the most valid system, possessed of the best evidence, for explaining Gods revelations of himself to man.  If you doubt that Christians use reason, read this newsgroup for a while and you will see rational debate aplenty.