Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2a.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!hou2a!54375rr
From: 54375rr@hou2a.UUCP (R.RENNINGER)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Omniscience and Freedom
Message-ID: <430@hou2a.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Oct-84 12:54:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou2a.430
Posted: Tue Oct  9 12:54:49 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Oct-84 04:26:08 EDT
References: <379@wucs.UUCP> <423@hou2a.UUCP>, <4424@fortune.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 33
Keywords: Omniscience God

>    You seem to think that _your_ beliefs have somethng to do with the
>  nature of God.  If He "exists", so to speak, what He is like 
>  may well have nothing to do with how you and I finally decide
>  on how to use words like "mind" and "consciousness".
>  With respect to God or any other superior being or force or 
>  whatever, we are like the  proverbial seven blind blind men 
>  and the elephant.  Anything we say is impure speculation.
>  They or it or Him will do whatever they or it or He 
>  damn well pleases.  If we think it is contradictory or impossible or
>  generally un-God-like, that's _our_ problem....
>  How can we then hope to define a supeior being with
>  certainty? 
>  
>		 Yours for a universe filled with surprises.
>  Henry Polard 
>  {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard

     You can define him any way you want, but you shouldn't
expect anyone to believe that you are talking about something
that exists unless your description is non-contradictory and
you provide some evidence that what you describe is real.
Making up a notion of "God" or "supreme being" is easy,
but first you really ought to offer some evidence.
Our thoughts most assuredly do not determine reality.
We must take the utmost care just to make sure that
they reflect reality.  It doesn't help matters if we
uncritically accept notions that are unsupported by facts or
logic.  I would much rather admit my ignorance about the world
than to make assumptions, revel in their
incoherence, and call them explanations.

				Bob Renninger
				hou2a!54375