Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646
From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Created Yesterday
Message-ID: <1310012@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Jun-85 15:35:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: acf4.1310012
Posted: Sun Jun  9 15:35:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Jun-85 06:51:59 EDT
References: <45200012@hpfcms.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 36

>/* bill@hpfcms.UUCP (bill) /  8:02 pm  Jun 16, 1985 */

>>...but that the "God" model
>>is kind of boring, whereas the inductive model is deeper and more demanding.
>>Some people really like to solve puzzles, so they put a lot of effort into
>>trying to figure out how the whole world as we observe it might have arisen
>>from structurally simple origins tranformed by uniform rules.
>>Other people don't, so they say "God did it".  This reduces insomnia.

>There you go again, Jim!  The value, truthfulness, validity, and strength
>of an argument is directly proportional to the amount of effort required
>to formulate it.  Talk about arrogance!!!  This is the whole problem
>between God and man - pride.  "God" is a "boring" model - too simple, too
>many questions answered (some by "We'll never know in this life.").

The god model is not a simple solution, or a solution at all, because
it leaves unanswered at least as many questions as it answers.  That
god created the world begs the question "Who created god?"  I could
come up with atheory that said tha god1 created th world and that god2
created god1.  Furthermore, I could say that there is an infinite series
of gods, god1, god2, . . ., godn, . . ., etc.  This "theory" has as much
merit as the monotheistic one, yet I suspect that you find it less
appealing (correct me, of course, if I'm wrong).  Why?

>Perhaps God doesn't put much stock into these "deep" and "demanding"
>theories, either.

No.  God uses a ouija board.

>Perhaps He is intellectually stagnant too.

He is.

>Bill Gates

					Mike Sykora