Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!ihnp1!ihnp4!fortune!polard
From: polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Penses
Message-ID: <5295@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-May-85 16:10:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: fortune.5295
Posted: Tue May 21 16:10:15 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 22-May-85 07:39:08 EDT
References: <1655@decwrl.UUCP> <45200003@hpfcms.UUCP> <734@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Reply-To: polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry polard)
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 18

In article <734@ssc-vax.UUCP> savage@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lowell Savage) writes:
>Religion is the study of God (or gods or lack of same) while
>science assumes that a supernatural being does not exist (or at least no
>longer "interferes" with the activity that takes place in the universe).
>Thus, from a scientific point of view, the only way to prove the existence
>of a God would be to observe inconsistencies in nature that are impossible
>to explain without negating that basic premise (i.e., assume that a super-
>natural being does exist).

There is an additional way to prove the existence of (a) God(s) - 
demonstration.  If God were to appear personally in all His glory 
for everyone to see, that would certainly be proof of His existence.
The fact that it hasn't happened recently tends to cloud the issue.
-- 
Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.)
{ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard
N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions
of me, my employer, or any AI project.