On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 09:20:35 -0400, Brad Cooley
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Personal experience does not prove that God exists, except to that
>individual.  It proves nothing to others.  Non-believers may question the
>existence of God, but it is not there burden to prove that GOd does or does
>not exist.  The burden of proof is the believers.

This last statement is the crux of the problem.

There is no necessity for proof.  Personal experience is the only
aspect that
matters in the slightest.

If it could not be proved to others that "air" existed or that it was
necessary
to breathe it, it would not stop me from breathing, nor from feeling
that it was
necessary, and that it would be a nice thing to suggest to others that
breathing
was a good idea.   (Not an exact parallel, but I've just chosen it to
suggest
the personal rather than mathematical nature of philosophical issues.)

God is not apparent to us in just the same way that our sunglasses are
not
apparent to us when we have previously placed them on the top of our
head.

However, this is not to say that Popular Religion - ie what you see on
TV or
what your neighbor says or what is said in the local religious
institution - has
much correspondence with actual reality either (any more than what is
said in
your local medical institution has much correspondence with actual
reality).

I just think that a few of us thought it appropriate to question a few
of the
assumptions that were being expressed at the beginning of this
discussion along
the lines of "any rational person doesn't believe any of this religion
nonsense,
and so we must find out the real sociological reasons for it
existing."


--
Cheers,

Ken
[log in to unmask]