mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (05/28/85)
In article <1310006@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >>Therefore, the existence of God is scientifically >>unknowable." >How do you know? If this statement were taken in context, it should have been read to say: "A god who possessed the qualities listed would be scientifically unknowable." Stripping the statement of all context isn't exactly the road to honest discussion. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "For the mouse is a creature of great personal valour." - C. Swift
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/28/85)
>/* mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) / 12:20 am May 28, 1985 */ >If this statement were taken in context, it should have been read to say: > "A god who possessed the qualities listed would be scientifically > unknowable." >Stripping the statement of all context isn't exactly the road to honest >discussion. >Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Sorry, just trying to save some typing, not to be dishonest. Ok, here goes: >The main premise in this argument is that God (if such an entity >exists) is the creator of the universe and of nature (perhaps >that statement is redundant, perhaps not). > >I still stand by my statement, (which I have revised hoping for more >clarity), "Science is incapable of investigating claims of beings >outside of 'nature'. God is an entity which, in existence, must be >outside of 'nature'. Therefore, the existence of God is scientifically >unknowable." What do you mean by "nature?" Are you saying that all qualities of god are unknowable, or just his existence? If the former, then whether or not all his qualities are knowable is also unknowable? If the latter, then why is his existence unknowable and not his other qualities? Mike Sykora