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