Re: virus: Faith (consolidation)

John \ (
Wed, 28 May 1997 09:36:16 -0400

At 03:55 PM 5/27/97 -0600, David McF wrote:
>Not true. If something is defined such that it is logically impossible
>or physically impossible (such as, e.g. an integer between 1 and 2,
>or Santa Claus, respectively) then their non-existence is essentially

By (human defined) definition, an integer between 1 and 2 is impossible.
We've cunningly set a clear cut-off point for what is an integer and what
is not. We thereby have complete control over the concept and definiton of
"integer," and since it is wholely our creation, nothing we've *created* to
be there will be there. So yes, it can be proven that there is no integer
between 1 and 2.

As far as "physically impossible," Santa may be physically impossible, but
Santa is rather well defined. God -- for the purposes of Athiesm -- is not;
and the "physically impossible" argument cannot apply:

1) The Iranaean version of God created the Universe, and all physical laws.
He has the power to violate them at will, since he is their author and not
bound by them.

2) The Whitehead version of God did not create the Universe but must act in
accordance with physics, etc. A formulation of God which violates known
physical laws is impossible; actions he may take that appear to violate
physical law are merely acting in accordance with physical law we haven't
discovered yet.

On the basis of (2), it is impossible to say that a Whitehead-God is
physically impossible, expecially since we don't know all there is to know
about physics. It must be conceded as a possibility -- if not a probability
-- that God operates/exists on some yet-to-be-discovered set of physical
laws. Hence: not a logical/rational reason to disbelieve in the Whitehead God.

On the basis of (1), physical possibility is not an issue. To claim that it
is physically impossible for something to exist outside of physics is
subject to the same "ignorance of Physics" statement in (2), and, besides,
is circular reasoning. Kinda like using the Bible to prove the Bible.

Now: last time I checked (fairly recently), athiest meant the same thing I
always thought it did: "one who claimed that no god (of any sort) exists."
Since a God inside-physics cannot be disproven, and a God outside-physics
cannot be disproven, I stick to my claim that athiesm is *not* a logical

I'm late for work...

John Williams ICQ Address: 1213689
Various Artists: Raising the Tide of Mediocrity for Two Years