John K Clark (johnkc@well.com)
Mon, 25 Nov 1996 13:02:10 -0800 (PST)


On Sat, 23 Nov 96 "David Musick" <David_Musick@msn.com> Wrote:

>Some people say that postulating the existence of a creator
>of this universe just adds an extra, complicating idea that
>doesn't really explain anything, so it should be rejected.
>I would say that this same argument also applies to the idea
>that there is a past, that there are events prior to this
>one. Postulating a past "does not explain anything.

It's true, the idea that the past existed has not been proved and probably
can never be proven, but I don't demand proof for everything I believe,
nobody could live that way. Until somebody comes up with a better idea I
would be most reluctant to abandon The Past Hypothesis, because if I did
I would also have to give up a tool that is even more important than logic
in helping me understand how the world works, Induction. Without Induction I
would be hopelessly confused and be unable to protect myself from any of the
dangers that are lurking everywhere in the environment. Without Induction
I would undoubtedly do something stupid and be dead in minutes if not seconds,
that's why evolution gave it to us, animals who lacked it were unable to
reproduce their genes. If the Past Hypothesis is a fiction it is a very
useful fiction.

The God Hypothesis on the other hand does not give me a corresponding tool of
vast power like Induction, it does not give me any tool at all, it just
generates wheels within wheels. Personally I think the world is hard enough
to understand as it is and I see no point in adding complications when there
is no payoff for doing so. If The God Hypothesis is the truth it is a
useless truth.

John K Clark johnkc@well.com

Version: 2.6.i