From: Eugene Leitl (Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de)
Date: Wed Feb 20 2002 - 05:54:01 MST
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 ABlainey@aol.com wrote:
> I also had to bite a bullet. It didn't quite have my brain in fully
> rational mode.
I doubt it. The test has a few arbitrary points. I took zero hits but bit
two bullets (or the test did fail in two minor points, regarding on your
> My problem was that I seem to require more proof that God exists than I need
> for the proof of Evolutionary theory. Interesting, but I think that I maybe
> justified in my view. ?.
Absolutely. Claim of a superbeing is a much taller order than an apersonal
optimization principle (and well validated at that -- not possible to map
to boolean domain as required by test). Hence considerably more and more
stringent proofs are required (not absolute, absolute doesn't exist).
Bitten Bullet 1
You answered "True" to questions 6 and 13.
These answers generated the following response:
You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However,
you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain,
irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain
proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming
evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain,
irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory
without certain proof. So you've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim
that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for
belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a
contradiction in your responses.
You chose to bite the bullet.
This is wrong. (a) is a perfectly valid response.
> I does point out that my belief that evolutionary theory is based to a
> degree on 'faith' in the absence of irrefutable proof. This is something that
> I can honestly say I have not thought about.
> Perhaps my reasoning is that any opposing views to evolution are so
> absurd that they don't deserve consideration.
I bit my second bullet here on the question of square circles. The claim
is equally highly dubious here, because spacetime geometry could very well
lead to different values of pi and polygonal circles, without being
inconsistent (i.e. other universes could have different laws of physics,
and hence reasoning based on local laws does not have necessary meaning
there). God deserving the name would be able to modify universes, and
assign arbitrary values to interpretation of different situations.
You answered "True" to Question 16.
This answer generated the following response:
You've just bitten a bullet! In saying that God has the freedom and power
to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles),
you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be
constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make
rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God
is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing
rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject
rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires
accepting that religious convictions, including your religious
convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:40 MST