Faterh Inire Theory

David Stockhoff · 12 Dec 2010, 22:02 · from 2010-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: dstockhoff at verizon.net (David Stockhoff)
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:02:37 -0500
Subject: (urth) Faterh Inire Theory
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W38AD8565B0833F330D2DDBCF110 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W38AD8565B0833F330D2DDBCF110 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4D05467D.4080403 at verizon.net>

You lost me. Gerry didn't say he and God were logically incompatible.

To me, one is provable/disprovable and the other is neither. That makes 
them "logically compatible," because one does not determine the 
existence/nonexistence of the other. That is,

no Gerry does not mean no God

real Gerry does not mean real God

no Gerry does not mean God

real Gerry does not mean no God

And the reverse as well. Where is the "corner"?

I will grant that we can say, "each one does not exist in the same sense 
as the other exists" and if they do, incompatibility may arise. Your 
examples are excellent.

God appearing to Gerry would, as you suggest, prove that He exists as 
Gerry does and cast some doubt on His existence otherwise---but not 
really, because maybe God was just popping in for Gerry's benefit and 
left most of Himself at home in Nondisprovableverse. Similarly, if God 
uses a Mac, then Disprovability has contaminated Nondisprovableverse and 
we have a problem. A hierarchy of 'Verses would help.

But I don't anticipate either type of event, myself.

On 12/12/2010 4:49 PM, Lee Berman wrote:
>
>> Gerry Quinn- If God exists, and the physical universe exists, it must be that they are
>> logically compatible.  If they are not logically compatible, at least one of them does not exist
>
> Gerry you have painted youself into an atheist corner here. God is defined, in deepest essence, as
> supernatural. Not of this physical universe. You might as well admit the point blank obvious by your
> rationale:
>
> God doesn't exist. The alternative is that you don't exist and [cogito ergo sum] you know you do.
>
> So many SF stories have painted the pagan gods as real physical entities. This is a way of acknowledging
> their false god status. I think it was Star Trek movie VI  in which the Judeo-Christian God, Jahweh, was
> discovered to be a planet-sized psychic entity which fed on human faith and belief. Again, proving the
> falsity of this god.
>
>
>> I don't think materialism is the issue here, but rationality!
>
> It doesn't matter. You could call it science or math or logic.  They are all basically same thing: tools
> the human brain uses to understand the world it perceives. Are these the only tools available?
>
> Gerry I asked before if you believe in God. Now I will ask if you believe in evolution (as the process
> which created human beings, I mean). 		 	   		
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 101212-0, 12/12/2010
> Tested on: 12/12/2010 4:50:30 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 AVAST Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
>


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 101212-0, 12/12/2010
Tested on: 12/12/2010 5:02:37 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net