home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!warwick!mauax
- From: mauax@warwick.ac.uk (Brazil)
- Newsgroups: sci.math
- Subject: Re: Proof of God's Existence
- Message-ID: <wx5pbcjl@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
- Date: 6 Sep 92 21:35:45 GMT
- References: <1992Sep1.215331.89956@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> <1992Sep1.183536.8925@cs.rose-hulman.edu>
- Sender: news@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Network news)
- Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
- Lines: 24
- Nntp-Posting-Host: lily
-
-
- I've been reading this thread and thought about it for a while. I hereby
- conclude that the attempts to prove the existence of god (I have
- deliberately left god in lower-case in the hope that some bible basher will
- flame me - so don't bother) rely on knowing what god is. So far I find that
- substituting the word 'universe' for 'god' doesn't make the slightest bit of
- difference.
- If we are trying to evaluate the existence of god then I (notice that I use
- a capital for the first person yo'ld bible bashers!) think that we should be
- trying to prove the existence of a little bit more than the universe, which
- incidentaly we cannot apply set theory to because of Russel's Paradox (note
- the capitals again bb's!)
-
- oh well - I'm probably wasting someone elses wavelength here. I'd be
- interested in some serious,non-flaming comments though.
-
-
- /-------------------------------------------------------------------\
- / Believe me I would love to let you know, but..... \
- /---------------------------------------------------------------------------\
- | I'm not at liberty to tell you anything. |
- \---------------------------------------------------------------------------/
- \ Brazil : mauax@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk :))) /
- \-------------------------------------------------------------------/
-