Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
From: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Shove over and make room for God!
Message-ID: <20854@styx.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 13-Sep-86 23:08:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: styx.20854
Posted: Sat Sep 13 23:08:37 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Sep-86 05:35:42 EDT
References: <5160@decwrl.DEC.COM> <3566@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> <194@BMS-AT.UUCP> <20852@styx.UUCP> <1145@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch)
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore CA
Lines: 24

In article <1145@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> vis@trillian.mit.edu writes:
>In article <20852@styx.UUCP> mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes:
>>
>>The most likely state of affairs is neither of the above, but instead
>>that God does not exist, and everything is NOT meaningless. In which case 
>>Pascal's advice is not useful.
>>
>Oh really? How do you figure the odds? I haven't found anything in life that
>required god to make it work right, but that doesn't mean I can make a good
>estimation of the probabilty of it (them?) existing. It might be like looking
>for a Unified Field Theory: you can do physics problems without it, but it sure
>would be interesting to find.

Precisely my point. I haven't found anything in life that needs a god
to make it work right either, and on that basis conclude that the
most likely nature of reality is that there is no God. I do not
attempt to assign a numerical probability of this being correct, but
merely note that it is, based on a lifetime of observation (:-) and
the reported observations of others and of trusted instruments,
more probable than other hypotheses as to the nature of reality.

Michael C. Berch
ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA
UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb