Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!wjh12!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: God and Necessity Message-ID: <718@ames.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Dec-84 16:22:00 EST Article-I.D.: ames.718 Posted: Wed Dec 19 16:22:00 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Dec-84 01:47:12 EST References: <1706@zehntel.UUCP> Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 32 [] > As we mortal humans can create increasingly sound explanations for the > workings of the universe without having to appeal to the existence of a > God for those sound explanations, then doesn't God (even if God exists!) > become increasingly not necessary? > > What is the use of a God which is not necessary? Why should one > believe in an unnecessary God? Why should one worship an > unnecessary God? > > Steve Nelson > zehntel!zinfandel!steve I think the use of the concept of God to explain the workings of physical processes (e.g., creationism) is, indeed, a hangover from earlier times. But God can still be a relevant concept for answering questions which are not physical/scientific. For example, "what is the basis for morality?"; "what is the meaning of life?"; "why is there evil?"; "why is there *anything*?". God is certainly not the only answer to questions of this sort; perhaps the questions themselves are meaningless. What *is* certain is that science cannot provide answers to questions which lie outside the realm of science. For such questions, "God" is a possible, though unprovable, answer. If it works for you, go with it; if not, don't worry about it. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry SOURCE: ST7891