Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!brahms!gsmith
From: gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: net.religion,talk.religion,net.origins
Subject: Re: The Cosmological Argument
Message-ID: <15280@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 15-Aug-86 05:02:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.15280
Posted: Fri Aug 15 05:02:31 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Aug-86 06:26:42 EDT
References: <15222@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <988@hoptoad.uucp> <15254@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <998@hoptoad.uucp>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 25
Xref: linus net.religion:10431 talk.religion:10 net.origins:3368

In article <998@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:

>Not at all, Gene.  To say "X exists" is to say "Not-X does not exist." 

   This is simply false. If Not-X is everything that is not X, then if X is
not already everything, "X exists" *implies* "Not-X exists". On the other
hand, if you mean "X exists" is to say "Not-Not-('X exists')", then this is
a double negative which helps you not at all.

>If all events are simply mathematical potentials, rather than an ordered series
>of causally-connected things; that is, if "the universe" is simply a set of
>potentials, with no potential excluded; then Not-X also exists.  Therefore,
>the entire criterion of "existence" becomes invalid.

   I translate your statement about potentials into "everything which *can*
exist, *does* exist". Clearly if all potentials exist, something exists; in
fact, a great deal exists.

>If your little mind is still befuddled, feel free to write again, but please
>don't strain yourself thinking about it....

   You neither, Y'hear?

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!weyl!gsmith            "When Ubizmo talks, people listen."