home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!uwm.edu!rutgers!dziuxsolim.rutgers.edu!ruhets.rutgers.edu!bweiner
- From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Subject: Re: Non-Existence of Existence (and God,too).
- Message-ID: <Jul.31.14.58.07.1992.23983@ruhets.rutgers.edu>
- Date: 31 Jul 92 18:58:08 GMT
- References: <1992Jul31.154324.22928@news.media.mit.edu>
- Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
- Lines: 25
-
- I'd like to point out that some medieval (I think) theologian
- DID argue that God is a being who has all properties, including
- that of existence, therefore God exists. This argument does sort of
- qualify for the "just as lame as all the other ontological arguments"
- award (how's that for faint praise?)
-
- Marvin Minsky writes:
- > To say that a certain object exists is like saying that it's in the
- >universe. There isn't anything wrong with that. But then, to say
- >that the @i[universe] exists is saying that the universe is inside
- >itself - which makes no sense at all. ...
-
- Mr. Minsky, last time you posted this I disagreed, but there's no
- point in rehashing it ... but I have no trouble believing that the
- universe exists, without having to be inside anything at all.
- [I guess that shows I'm not a quantum cosmologist.]
- (BTW, I notice that your phrasing is exactly the same as last time -
- *and* you're using SCRIBE instead of TeX. No fair saving your old
- arguments, I've half forgotten mine!)
-
- Ben Weiner
-
- This post was generated by a computer program, which expressly disclaims
- any implied warranty of fitness, merchantability, or usability for
- the advertised or any other purpose.
-