Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxj!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!wkp From: wkp@lanl.ARPA Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Logic based on different sets of assumptions (reposting) Message-ID: <22580@lanl.ARPA> Date: Thu, 28-Feb-85 17:39:22 EST Article-I.D.: lanl.22580 Posted: Thu Feb 28 17:39:22 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 04:16:34 EST References: <589@pyuxd.UUCP> Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 33 In article <589@pyuxd.UUCP>, Professor Wagstaff (what kind of Jewish name is this, Rich?) writes: >Since there is no hard evidence to support the existence of a deity, one would >normally work (in a typical analysis of a non-religious oriented phenomena) >from the assumption that the thing for which there is no evidence does not >exist. Without evidence showing proof of a thing's existence, or its observed >effect on the "physical" world, via Occam people would generally assume that >it does not exist until evidence of a viable nature presents itself. The >*possibility* that it may exist is left open, but such a possibility evinces >itself if and only if evidence is presented to support it. I don't understand your logic at all, Professor. I use Newton's laws of motion all the time--AND I BELIEVE IN THEM!--yet I can never hope to prove them! All that I can say is that Newton's laws of motion (for non-relativ- istic motion, of course) are not inconsistent with any known observations or experiments. These laws--and all scientific laws--can never be proven. However, their general applicability to a wide range of EXPERIENTIAL evidence INDICATES that these laws do "exist". Similarly, with the existence of a deity. There is no way to prove the existence of a deity, but a good case can be made for the fact that certain peculiar physical coincidences and the structure of mathematical and physical laws INDICATES to many intelligent people the existence of a creator. Note the existence of such a creator is not inconsistent with any known physical law or experimental observation. Could you explain what you mean, Professor? -- bill peter !cmcl2!lanl!wkp