Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Penses
Message-ID: <265@spar.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-May-85 07:00:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.265
Posted: Tue May 28 07:00:06 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 07:44:30 EDT
References: <1655@decwrl.UUCP> <45200003@hpfcms.UUCP> <734@ssc-vax.UUCP> <5295@fortune.UUCP> <766@ssc-vax.UUCP> <993@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 22

>> 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.

    You folks should at least define what you mean by `Nature'.

    One definition I've encountered is:

    	`That part of the world which is scientifically verifiable,
	 or which can be objectively determined by independent observers'

    I suspect this is close to what Christians mean, but I'd hesitate to
    guess what Rich Rosen has in mind.

   SMASH CAUSALITY!!

-michael