Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!scherzo!allegra!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: God, Goedel, Wittgenstein
Message-ID: <2031@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 00:54:44 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.2031
Posted: Mon Nov  4 00:54:44 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 07:09:08 EST
References: <10673@ucbvax.ARPA> <1744@akgua.UUCP> <788@cybvax0.UUCP> <613@spar.UUCP> <1791@watdcsu.UUCP> <623@spar.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 37
Xref: linus net.religion:7746 net.philosophy:2756

>>>    I think Bob's notion of God as representing a higher level of truth than
>>>    can be verified within the system is very close to what mystics have
>>>    been saying for a long time. Mike, your objection is totally losing.  A
>>>    `higher truth' that includes all truths perceivable from within a system
>>>    as well as those only perceivable from without IS TOTALLY logical.

>>I have posted, separately, a proof that there is at least one true statement
>>that God doesn't know.

>     Hmmm. I did not see that proof, but I have no reason to doubt your 
>     confidence in it validity. I might as well give up. You win.
>     Hey God! Stop existing!! 
>     God does not exist, as you have so cleverly demonstrated.

Your carefulness in reading is apparent.  He said "a proof that there is at
least one true statement that God doesn't know".  Not a proof of god's
non-existence.  It's nice to see a disinterested third party example of
your taking someone's article and reading into it what you like and making
stupid comments about it.  And to think, I thought it was just me...

>>"Ethics" is a word we use to describe a process in which humans
>>evaluate the actions of themselves and others.  Given that the human
>>being performing these evaluations is a physical system, ethical
>>evaluation is a physical activity.  Rather than something "revealed",
>>I think ethics is a matter of neural "wiring" and past experience.
>>(Hardware & software, if you prefer.) -- David Canzi

>     I agree Dave.  YOU are simply a physical being mechanically behaving
>     according to neural "wiring" and past experience. You and Rich Rosen
>     would make swell robot buddies. 
    
Note, readers, that Michael CANNOT provide a counterargument to what was said
(and very well, by the way, David!), so instead he resorts to a vacuous
emotionally rhetorical statement.  Beautiful.
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr