Re: Modeling God (was Re: The pool we're trying to paddle in)

From: Steve Nichols (
Date: Fri Apr 13 2001 - 13:21:02 MDT

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Travas Gunnell <>
Subject: Modeling God (was Re: The pool we're trying to paddle in)

>Atheists can indeed say "god doesn't exist". For a
>nice, and somewhat lengthy, article on the subject, go

>Modeling God: Deferred Abusrdity

> >I realize religions have pat (unacceptable) answers
> to these
> >questions.
> >Of course a wise person would simply take Pascal's
> wager (Blaise,
> >look it up) and say they believe. Come to think of
> it, I repent!!

>Pascal's Wager is rather silly, not to mention
>hypocritical. Does someone employing Pascal's Wager
>think that he can trick an omniscient being by
>believing in something "just in case"? And which
>religion is it that such a person is to believe in?
>With the thousands of choices available how are you
>going to be sure you've chosen the right one? You
>can't believe in all of them, as many of them are
>diametrically opposed, and some explicitly condemn
> Additionally, for most religions one just can't
>say "I believe" and leave it at that. One must also
>agree to a certain set of dictates that one must live
>thier lives by. So, if the Wagerist does decide on
>one particular religious denomination, he risks
>wasting his entire life in servitude to a lie. Not my
cup of tea. :-)

The onus surely is on the person making the truth
claim (God exists) to provide some sort of evidence,
not on everyone else to produce counter-evidence.

Not only is there no scrap of evidence for any of
the supernaturalist claims .... but I don't even think
the (linguistic) truth claim is intelligible ... God is
invisible, and indescribable ... so who can even start
to believe in such a nebulous concept, it just doesn't
make sense even on a conceptual level, no two
theologians seem to share the same concept of God.
Posthuman Movement

- -Travas

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:46 MDT