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