Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dubuc's Reply - Part 1 of 2
Message-ID: <4965@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 12:17:41 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4965
Posted: Tue Mar 12 12:17:41 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Mar-85 02:25:30 EST
References: <589@pyuxd.UUCP> <4898@cbscc.UUCP>, <650@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 130

}|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.  [ROSEN]
}
}> What makes you think that evidence used to analyse non-religious phenomena
}> also applies to religious phenomena?  [DUBUC]
}
}What is the difference between "non-religious phenomena" and "religious
}phenomena"?  Aren't you ASSUMING a difference to exist?  Aren't you assuming
}your conclusion: that there is some sort of fundamental difference?

I think there is a difference.  Maybe I am assuming it.  Aren't you assuming
there isn't; assuming your conclusion?   I think the concept of God we are
talking about implies a difference.  If we are talking about a supernatural
God I wouldn't include him in the natural.  If we are talking about a natural
one, then let's quit here.  I don't believe one exists either.

You spent a lot of time GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRing at me in this article, insisting
that I was wrong to say thay you were defending the assumption that there
is no God.  Look at the words I capitalized in your first paragraph.  Sounds
like you're trying to validate that assumption to me.

}> The problem with your critierion for proof is that it demands that God be
}> an object that is available for examination.  If he isn't you assume he
}> doesn't exist. [GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!  (See what I mean?)]
}> So for God to prove himself to you he would have to make himself an object;
}> a type of machine that produces conclusive evidence on demand.  ... Just
}> about any physical proof you could name (some act for God to perform to prove
}> his existence) would fall short of being conclusive for a number of reasons.
}> ...It could be attributed to natural as yet unexplained causes.  This happens
}> alot.  Some phenomena will convince some but not others.
}
}Important point here.  Attributing something to "natural but as yet unexplained
}causes" seems to be a more rational step than attributing it to god.  Unless
}of course you assume god in advance.  I mean, who is jumping to conclusions,
}the one who says "I'm not sure what the cause of that is but let's investigate"
}or the one who says "I know what the cause is--it's god!!!"?

It may be a more rational step to you, but it seems to involve the assumption
that God wasn't the cause (because you assume he doesn't exist?
GRRR!  I know.)  "As yet unexplained causes" is a catch-all for anything
you can't explain.  So what kind of evidence do you want for the existence
of God that won't fit into this catch-all?

}> If God is not a machine but has a will for those who beleive in him, then why
}> should he be concerned about just proving the mere fact of his existence to
}> everyone?  [WHY, INDEED!!]  If he did, what is to prevent them from saying,
}> "OK, God exists.  So What?".  There is no gaurentee that people will follow
}> the implications of his existence or even understand them.  They might as
}> well not believe. 
}
}What is WRONG with their saying "OK, God exists.  So what?".  You seem to
}be making some assumptions about precisely what the "implications" are
}in advance, and about whether or not there will be any [implications].
}Why should we worry about "preventing" them?  "They might as well not believe."
}You are claiming some sort of knowledge of what is required of people if they
}learned of the existence of god, are you not?

Well, the God I believe in has implications for that beleif.  I don't think
I am under any constraint to support the existence of any other God.  I don't
believe there is any other God.

}> The whole point if the previous long paragraph is that I could take
}> any concieveable "evidence" that meets your criterion for viability and
}> "skepticize" it.
}
}The whole point of most of what I've been writing on the subject is that *you*
}(and others) DO accept any conceivable evidence and ignore less presumptive
}(what you might call skeptical) possibilities in favor of what you choose to
}believe.

I don't exclude God's existence, if that's what you mean.  I don't think
I take any concievable evidence as being direct evidence ("hard evidence"
as you say) of God's existence.   The problem I'm trying to point out is
that you demand evidence, but what conceivable evidence would suffice for
you?

}> It seems to me that by insisting that God objectify
}> himself you necessarily require that he not be God at all, but a continual
}> evidence producing machine or some kind of genie in a bottle.  All I
}> can conclude is that the existence of God (especially the Christian
}> God) cannot be proven under your constraints.  But I don't think that
}> it compells me to assume God dosn't exist.
}
}(*GRRRRRRRRRRRRR*)**3!!!!  I'm not "insisting" that a god be or do anything
}at all.  *You* are formulating criteria to decide what *you* think it would
}take for me to believe in something you believe in.  Not me.

OK, Rich, why don't you just tell me what your criteria are so I don't have
to guess?  I thought you wanted some kind of physical evidence.  What kind?

}> You assume your own framework for interpreting evidence allows you to draw
}> valid conclusions.  What constitutes evidence of a "viable" nature?  To me
}> and you, it may be different things.  ... You assume that the explanation
}> that is consistent with your worldview is correct.
}
}The "worldview" is formed by the conclusions, not the other way around.
}In religious belief, it would seem to be quite the other way around.

A chicken-and-egg problem.  How do you draw conclusions without an interpretive
framework (worldveiw)?  I think its OK to say the conclusions modify one's
worldview, but I doubt whether they can be said to produce it.

}> Also your position can easily be reversed and applied to those believe
}> God does not exist.  (1) You have different criteria than I, or (2) you
}> may have a vested interest in God's non-existence, or both.
}
}Again, you reiterate the fact that possibility 1 above is correct.  I am
}claiming that because the nature of my criteria for viability is not only
}stricter than yours, but also because it excludes (or attempts to do so
}as much as possible) the unreliable, that my set of criteria is thus better
}than yours for making such determinations.  This doesn't make me somehow
}*better* than you (as some would imply that I was insinuating).  And, no, I
}don't have a "vested interest" in god's non-existence, as my discussions on
}deific possibilities attest to.

I still don't see how your criteria are less presumptive.  You think they
are stricter.  I think they are narrowed to exclude the possibility of God's
existence.  I've speculated on God's non-existence myself.  So I guess you
would have to agree that I don't have a vested interest in His existence.
Actually I see a lot of advantages to his non-existence (short-term, but
that's all I'd care about if God didn't exist).
-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd