Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Talking to God (actually, on prayer)
Message-ID: <4642@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 7-Apr-85 23:42:33 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.4642
Posted: Sun Apr  7 23:42:33 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Apr-85 04:04:31 EST
References: <4537@umcp-cs.UUCP> <449@cybvax0.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 37
Xref: linus net.religion:6121 net.religion.christian:559

In article <449@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:

>The vertical and horizontal response to prayer is a good idea, though I
>would consider them opposite ends of a spectrum of response times.  We
>should be able to measure responses (if they exist) within some range of
>time from seconds to decades.

Mike, you're thinking of a God living in time again.  What's to stop God
from hearing your prayer in the present, acting to set things up 10 years in
the past, and having the response show up in a week?  I don't see how you
could measure response time, becuase you wouldn't be able to track down the
backwards component, unless you were very lucky.

>> It seems to me that, if you want to disallow theistic explanations of the
>> world, you must claim one of the following statements:
>> 
>>   (1) Science is the only worthwhile method for explaining the universe.
>> 
>>   (2) Religion is so important that only science is trustworthy enough to
>>       explore it.
>> 
>> I think the first position is without merit.  It denies the utility of the
>> emotions, and it begs the question of on what basis the principle is
>> stated. The second statement is, I think, worthy of further discussion.

>There is an assumption implicit in both those statements that I don't agree
>with: that science is the only reason one might have to disallow theistic
>explanations.  Any system that includes Occam's razor would also have
>cause.

The statement was intended in the context of this discussion on experiments.
I guess I don't know what else to call such a system.

Wat system containing Occam's razor, but not relying upon experimentation,
would you invoke, anyway?

umcp-cs!mangoe  charley Wingate