Steven Brust wrote: > At 05:02 AM 11/28/2002 -0800, Caliann the Elf wrote: > >> >> The existence of a Deity is not provable. The non-existence of a >> Deity is not provable. ( Learned that in Philosophy 101...man, was my >> prof a sadist) That some choose to believe in a Deity makes them no >> better or worse than those who do not. > > > This is at the heart of this whole conversation. In my opinion, it > comes down to the notion that "proof" is something that we do in our > heads. We construct a proof that passes certain tests of what we call > "logic." How do we know this "logic" makes sense? Easy: we "proved" it > in our heads, with logic. > Logic generally works, the assumptions underlying a particular argument can often be dubious. > Feh. > > Logic is useful servant but a poor master. We, as human beings, "prove* > that our ideas are correct (or incorrect) not by sitting around > thinking, but by making actual changes in the world around us in > accordance with our ideas. When our ideas are wrong, the world let's us > know sooner or later. Usually sooner. > Yes and no. Often we do use experimental evidence to back up ideas, sometimes its just too damn hard. This doesn't always mean the idea is incorrect. And sometimes both are very hard, this is known as the Fermats a bastard clause:) > Can I "prove* that god does not exist outside of the realm of thought? > Well, not by thinking about it! Not within the confines of formal > logic. But then, I consider formal logic to be a poor system of > thought, because reality doesn't work according to those rules. > Well no, but then again you can't *prove* that anything exists outside your own head, we just assume it does, otherwise its all a bit silly and pointless really. Formal logic is just like any tool, and it can be incredibly useful for moving from facts that you accept to new facts and it works. And that progression doesn't neccessarily have to happen in your own head. > To the extent that we understand nature, to that extent can we *control* > nature--can we make a world in accordance with our wishes. This means > understanding the laws of the motion of matter, as complex and varied > and wonderful as they are. To introduce into our thoughts idea which do > not reflect the world as it is, but, in particular require suspending or > denying those very laws, hinders our understanding. Depends on what you mean by God. Some peoples definitions of God do not deny the laws of nature as we know them, but rather center on God being an Experience. Does that require a denial of these laws or does it hinder our understanding. In general terms, my issues with religion stem from the social and political structures that religous and other ideologies have a nasty tendancy to adopt. In general there are individuals who are appointed as gatekeepers to enlightenment, for want of a better word. This individuals control access to whatever it is that important to that ideology wheather it be salvation or knowledge or something else entirely. I find that this appointment often is undemocratic and arbitary and I feel that giving people power in an undemocratic and an arbitary manner is problematic to say the least. > > The above is by no means a *proof* that god does not exist. I hope it > is a step toward an explanation of why I reject him and the Pegasus he > rode in on. > And a fair explanation it was too. Thankyou for sharing. > > I am not to blame for being god. > > The position was forced upon me. > Well you wouldn't be the first genre author to start a religion:) I will get worried when you start living on a boat[1]. Andrew. [1] If only cause I have read Last Call :)