Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mcnc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!bch From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: what does it mean to talk to God [a brief attempt at an answer] Message-ID: <2635@mcnc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 8-Mar-85 00:38:38 EST Article-I.D.: mcnc.2635 Posted: Fri Mar 8 00:38:38 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Mar-85 07:08:43 EST References: <893@topaz.ARPA> Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service Lines: 30 Xref: watmath net.religion:5894 net.religion.christian:378 Summary: In article <893@topaz.ARPA> hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) writes: > ...if I claim that God is sending me messages on 100 MHz with frequency >modulation, it is very easy to verify whether this is true or not. When I >claim that he is sending me messages through the events around me, it is >very hard to prove this true or false. Someone else can look around and see >no message there. According to certain philosophers of science, in the >final analysis this means that my claim is meaningless. More problematic is the situation where someone else looks around and sees a *different* message there. Now we have counterclaims of truth, each with the same degree (or lack thereof) of falsifiability. This is the question which generates the continuing heat in this newsgroup. As I have been asked on any number of occasions, how is it possible to determine what is correct? I would claim that it is not, and that the evidence would indicate that G-d speaks to different people in different ways and with different messages. It is easy to beg the question by saying that essentially "I know I am right and you are mistaken -- come read *my* books." There is not, however, any objective criteria on which to base that statement and all subjective criteria have to be equally weighted (my revelation is not objectively superior or inferior to your revelation.) I think Chuck's analysis is, as usual, well thought out but I don't think it really addresses the questions that have been asked here. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch