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!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!fortune!polard From: polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Penses Message-ID: <5303@fortune.UUCP> Date: Fri, 24-May-85 17:17:47 EDT Article-I.D.: fortune.5303 Posted: Fri May 24 17:17:47 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 25-May-85 08:21:11 EDT References: <1655@decwrl.UUCP> <45200003@hpfcms.UUCP> <734@ssc-vax.UUCP> <5295@fortune.UUCP> <766@ssc-vax.UUCP> Reply-To: polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry polard) Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA Lines: 53 Summary: In article <766@ssc-vax.UUCP> savage@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lowell Savage) writes: >Henry Polard writes: >> 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. > >The trouble with such a thing occurring is that the phenomena of the >God's (or god's) appearance would have to be explained by science as >something occurring within the universe. Why is that trouble? If God is not part of the universe, what prevents Him from acting, affecting, or manifesting in the universe? Further, what prevents God from doing whatever He wishes to do? >We still don't know whether the powerful entity is part of nature or not. >If it is part of nature, then it is not God. Both "universe" and "nature" are human concepts. If God appeared, then the term "nature" might be expanded to include God. How we use the term "nature" might not affect God Himself. >The main premise in this argument is that God (if such an entity >exists) is the creator of the universe and of nature (perhaps >that statement is redundant, perhaps not). I do not understand how God's creating nature and the universe prevents Him from entering the universe or nature. If I build a house, does that mean I can't enter it or change it? >I still stand by my statement, (which I have revised hoping for more >clarity), "Science is incapable of investigating claims of beings >outside of 'nature'. But Science (yes I know this is an abstaction and not a "real" entity) is flexible enough to extend the limits of the term "nature". >God is an entity which, in existence, must be outside of 'nature'. >Therefore, the existence of God is scientifically unknowable." See above re: "nature". Why must the existence of something outside "nature" not be knowable? I wonder why the following would not be possible: o Nature being one with God o Nature being part of God, and part of God being knowable o God being part of nature o God appearing differently to each individual (Please - no answers based exclusively on faith. You are absolutely right.) The main point of all of this typing is that our logic has no bearing on what God is like. > There's more than one way to be savage. Perhaps there's more than one way to be Divine. -- 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.