Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!brahms!m128abo
From: m128abo@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.religion,talk.religion,net.origins
Subject: Re: The Cosmological Argument
Message-ID: <15276@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 15-Aug-86 03:50:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.15276
Posted: Fri Aug 15 03:50:24 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Aug-86 06:23:59 EDT
References: <15222@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <988@hoptoad.uucp>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: m128abo@brahms.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 24
Xref: linus net.religion:10426 talk.religion:8 net.origins:3365

> Tim Maroney

> Easy to shoot down.  There is no reason to assume that anything
> exists.  All events may simply be mathematical potentials, none more
> real than any other.  Our experiences are simply some of the
> potentials.  Therefore, since there is no objective reason to assume
> that anything exists, the first premise of the argument is flawed or
> at least unneccessary, and the argument becomes suspect.

    In that case, existence as an all-or-none affair is replaced by
    existence as a superposition of potentia. Doesn't weakening
    "strict objective existence" to "intersubjectivity" assert that
    existability, if not existence, exists?

>(No, this is not a joke; yes, I am prepared to doubt that anything exists.)

    But are you prepared to doubt slack?

-michael

    The fact that operant behavior seems "directed toward the future"
    is misleading.

-BF Skinner