Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-trillian!vis
From: vis@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Tom Courtney)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: God and Occam (was Re: the cosmological argument)
Message-ID: <1123@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 10-Sep-86 14:05:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-tril.1123
Posted: Wed Sep 10 14:05:24 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Sep-86 06:44:19 EDT
References: <496@tekfdi.UUCP>
Reply-To: vis@trillian.UUCP (Tom Courtney)
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Lines: 19

In article <496@tekfdi.UUCP> bobb@tekfdi.UUCP (Robert Bales) writes:
>In article <3542@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>, Brian McNeill writes:
>
>> . . .I do acknowledge the POSSIBILITY of a God...I do NOT acknowledge the
>> infinitesmal possibility (in my opinion) that the (if any) God is as
>> Christians believe...I like to think that if there is one, it is more
>> likely that He wears a white lab coat :^) and conducts experiments on
>> evolution (with us as guniea pigs) :) :) :)
>
>If we attempt to choose between these two: In favor of the Christian God, we
>have a book which states that it was inspired by that God, a book which makes
>specific claims as to what God will do for any individual. These claims have
>been verified by millions. In favor of the "God in the white lab coat," we
>have -- ?

Similarly, the Buddhist, Shinto, and Moslem claims have been verified by 
millions. If number of people is the important fact, then we can go around and
legislate reality. Perhaps the old fantasy idea that gods stop existing when 
people stop believing in them really is true.