At 09:04 AM 11/29/2002 +0800, Andrew Bailey wrote: >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. I must respectfully disagree. Formal logic fails miserably as soon as it ventures out of it's safe little home in academia and travels the world. Causes turn into effects, which then turn into further causes; A turns out to be the opposite of A. Things that *are* become *not*. Formal logic only works in a world where isolated things remain isolated, and where internal motion and change within a thing can be ignored. >>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:) By your use of "experiments" it seems you still stuck on this "proof" thing. Let me try it this way: we are not here to "prove" that our ideas of the world are correct. We are here to make the world what we wish it to be. Doing so requires that our ideas be as close to reality as we can get. > >>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. Well, sure. And then I stop disagreeing with them. Remember, I'm not denying the existence of god; I'm denying that there is a god outside of the realm of ideas. I'm denying a world in which the laws of nature do not operate, or can be suspended. If you want to take some aspect or aspects of the material world and label them "God" then I might wonder why you bother, but I certainly won't dispute it. > >>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]. Well, actually, if truth be told, I dream of life on a Mississipi River steamboat. And I could do it, too. Anyone have a spare six million dollars? Maybe God will give it to me.