Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site grkermit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!grkermit!larry
From: larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: GOD?
Message-ID: <603@grkermit.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Aug-83 17:18:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: grkermit.603
Posted: Fri Aug 19 17:18:47 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Aug-83 23:17:11 EDT
References: hplabsc.1306 <951@ittvax.UUCP>
Organization: GenRad Inc., Concord, MA
Lines: 37

WEX@ittvax claims to have a logical proof of the need for existence for
some sort of Is (GOD).

His argument is based on two shaky premises:

1.  Human thought .... seems to be somehow outside the chain of
causality.


2.  Somewhere there needs to be a first event, and that event requires
a first cause, and only something with cognition can "cause" things.


I don't see any evidence at all for the first point.  Human thought is
the result of chemical processes in the brain.  If you think there is
some sort meta-physical soul, than you are starting out with an article
of faith and your argument ceases to me logically sound.

As far as the second point goes, I think you had better explain what
you mean by cause.  I can cause things to happen.  I can push a button
on my keyboard, and a letter appears on the screen.  But if a rock fell
on my keyboard, the samething would happen.  How do you differentiate?

You can trace my causation even farther back.  I hit the keyboard
because I wanted to communicate with net.users.   I wanted to do that
because I had the instinctive need of a social animal.  This
instinctive need is contained in certain chemical structures in my
brain which react in ways know to the laws of physics and chemistry.
There's nothing mysterious about it.  Until you can justify putting
human action outside the laws of physics, your argument doesn't hold
water.


-- 
Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
{linus decvax}!genrad!grkermit!larry
(ARPA)  rms.g.lkk@mit-ai