Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!sundog.tiac.net!wizard.pn.com!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!psinntp!relay1!rsvl_ns!ernie!pja1.rsvl.unisys.com!pja1
From: pja1@rsvl.unisys.com
Subject: Re: Is there a spiritual force etc.?
Sender: news@rsvl.unisys.com (News Admin)
Message-ID: <pja1.12.00A38A94@rsvl.unisys.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 16:37:42 GMT
Lines: 34
References:  <36d31f$sag@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
Nntp-Posting-Host: pja1
Organization: Unisys - Roseville, MN
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B]

In article <36d31f$sag@nntp.Stanford.EDU> rubble@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Heath Clark) writes:
>From: rubble@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Heath Clark)
>Subject: Re: Is there a spiritual force etc.?
>Date: 29 Sep 1994 00:50:55 GMT

>In article <19940928.095450.733@almaden.ibm.com>,
> <mpriestley@VNET.IBM.COM> wrote:
>>rubble@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Heath Clark) writes:
>>>thing is, everything about god is about external states, in which decepton
>>           ----------------------------------------------
>>>is possible.
>>
>>This is your conception of god.  Nowhere have I suggested that god
>>has anything to do with external states.  My premise: given a direct
>>subjective experience of a being infinitely greater than the self,
>>it makes sense to believe in the existence of a being infinitely greater
>>than the self.  This experience is grounded in the same way that
>>the experience of isolated consciousness is grounded, and has the same
>>implications for "external states" (ie none at all).
>>
>if what you're saying is that the experience is all inside a person's
>head, then i agree.  with the aid of various chemicals, i have seen a
>little of what the brain is capable of in this department, and i don't
>find it at all strange that people can have intense and spiritual 
>experiences like this.

>but when you start talking about god, i get a picture of some more-or-less
>anthropomorphic being who is *actually out there* and is communicating with
>people.  and this falls into the category of external things.

i'm curious, how do you respond to the argument set forth in "miracles" by 
c.s. lewis--isn't his argument rational?


