Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!savage
From: savage@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lowell Savage)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Penses
Message-ID: <794@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-May-85 18:58:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.794
Posted: Fri May 24 18:58:50 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 02:25:19 EDT
References: <1655@decwrl.UUCP> <45200003@hpfcms.UUCP> <734@ssc-vax.UUCP> <5295@fortune.UUCP> <766@ssc-vax.UUCP> <993@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 39

> > The main premise in this [my] 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 still stand by my statement, (which I have revised hoping for more
> > clarity), "Science is incapable of investigating claims of beings
> > outside of 'nature'.  God is an entity which, in existence, must be
> > outside of 'nature'.  Therefore, the existence of God is scientifically
> > unknowable."
> 
> Depends how you define "nature".  If you use an arbitrary, anthropocentric
> definition that limits its scope specifically so that 1) "nature" is defined
> as that which is in the "universe" of humans and 2) there is a notion of
> "outside" that "nature" that is a priori defined as the realm of a creator,
> then you have assumed your conclusions about gods.
> 				Rich Rosen 	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr	

No, it depends on how I define "GOD".  As I said in my previous posting
(quoted above), GOD is defined as an entity which has created the universe.
Science is inherently incapable of evaluating whether some entity has
created the universe or not.  My argument does not assume the EXISTENCE
of such an entity, just the DEFINITION.  Thus, I am NOT assuming a priori,
the existence of GOD or gods.
   If you want to extend "nature" to include an entity which has
created everything that humans are capable of percieving (which I
have called "nature"), then all you've done is changed the words
that I would have to use in my argument.  What I called "nature" 
becomes something like "that part of nature which humans are capable
of perceiving", and GOD becomes something like "an entity which
created that part of nature which humans are capable of perceiving."
   Then, the limitations of science are more explicitly explained as
the inherent limitations of humans to percieve their universe--even
aided by all the tools they are capable of building.

   I LIKE this discustion.  It lacks most of the invective that seems to
be so common on this network--like the smelly stuff is in the barn.

				There's more than one way to be savage

				Lowell Savage (uw-beaver!ssc-vax!savage)