On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Dana Hedberg wrote:
>
> The answer is: you don't know. Of course you can not "prove" something's
> non-existence, but your statement above is a priori. You can not say for
> sure that there is a God (Supreme Being, etc.), and you can't say for
> sure that there is not. Agnosticism seems the logical choice in this
> situation.
>
I'm afraid I would have to concur. Hell, if you accept quantum mechanics
which is all "probabilities", why not treat god the same way.
> > Someone else (Clint?):
> >
> > Evidence of existence lies on a person making the claim. One
> > cannot rationally believe everything their imagination or
> > friend's imagination conceives of.
> >
>
> Agreed. But why are you so certain there is no Supreme Being responsible
> for our creation?
>
Particularly since you can't prove that the entire can of worms isn't
a simulation or an SI experiment. You have to say to yourself,
hmmmm, 11 dimensions [from string theory], I wonder *why* 11?
When dealing with the question of "god", I think its better not
to focus on existence or non-existence but instead to focus on
the semantic issues of how poorly defined the concepts are.
E. g. in the "classical" version, god created this universe,
but if the multi-verse theories of physics are correct, is "god"
responsible for those alter-verses, or do they each get a separate
"god"?
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:28 MDT