Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.physics,alt.atheism,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky
From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Subject: Re: Goedel, and the Proof of
Message-ID: <1995May3.020925.15657@news.media.mit.edu>
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Cc: minsky
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
References: <3nq94k$kf4@infoserv.rug.ac.be> <Pine.HPP.3.91.950430161957.20258D-100000@weber.ucsd.edu> <3o5vvo$nqm@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 02:09:25 GMT
Lines: 25
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.logic:10536 sci.physics:119997 comp.ai.philosophy:27481

>	Seriously: Suppose somebody's trying to prove the existence of
>God. He cleverly points out that a watch requires a watchmaker, so the
>universe requires a universe maker, QED. You ask him why God does not 
>then require a Godmaker. You think you have him there, but no, he replies
>that the reason God does not require a Godmaker is that God's infinite,
>closing with "You're a mathematician - you understand about the concept
>of infinity, don't you?". How does a person answer that?
>Dave Ullrich

Isn't it obvious?  If you assume an infinite God, you might as well
assume an infinite sequence of objects.  One of them will (with
probability 1 be a watch, another (also with probability 1) will be
every large but finite universe.  However, it will be only with
probability 0 that it will include any infinite God.  Therefore,
watches and worlds will surely exist--and yet, still, there won't be
any such Gods.  "You're a mathematician - you understand about the
concept of infinity, don't you?"

----

Note.  This proof is hereby copyrighted.  There is no charge for
attempting to use it; however, anyone who successfully uses it to
converting a theist into an atheist must pay a royalty of $1.00.

