Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.physics,alt.atheism,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu!i4067120.cfa.ilstu.edu!user
From: sewalter@ilstu.edu (Scott Walters)
Subject: Re: Goedel, and thc Proof of "god"
Sender: news@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (News Admin.)
Message-ID: <sewalter-1005951259170001@i4067120.cfa.ilstu.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 12:59:17 -0600
References: <3nq94k$kf4@infoserv.rug.ac.be> <ANSM.95May4234056@term2.tfd.chalmers.se> <3ocgo2$48v@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> <ANSM.95May5182810@term2.tfd.chalmers.se> <3oj88g$cre@Radon.Stanford.EDU> <ANSM.95May8170641@term12.tfd.chalmers.se>
Organization: Illinois State University
Lines: 41
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.logic:10744 sci.physics:120938 comp.ai.philosophy:27895

In article <ANSM.95May8170641@term12.tfd.chalmers.se>,
ansm@tfd.chalmers.se (Andrew Smirnoff) wrote:

> In article <3oj88g$cre@Radon.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU
(Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
> 
[Editing interesting discussion to get to:]
> 
>    Interestingly, in today's Parade magazine, Mensa writer Marily vos
>    Savant ("Ask Marilyn") says that science should not exclude the
>    possibility of existence a god.  
 
> As for "science should not exclude the possibility of existence of a
> god". The place of god(s) has always being in the unexplained or in the
> unknown. It is the only place one can find for him since from what we
> know there is no God.

The existence of a god is a hypothesis, as is much of modern science. 
Scientists THINK that they have put together a "model" of how the universe
came into existence, but it is only a hypothesis--there is no definitive
proof.  Ultimately, therefore, scientific opinion about the universe is no
more valid than religious opinion.  I am not arguing for the existence of
god, but rather AGAINST the DISMISSAL if this possibility by a science
that claims more "truth" than it rightfully can.

 But each time the unknown becomes known God has
> to be moved farther into the yet unknown. So, if anyone proposes today
> that the will of God manifests itself in the Big Bang or lies behind
> the appearance of DNA he runs a high probability of being wrong
> tomorrow. No reasonable scientist would do it.

No reasonable scientist would discount the possibility, either, since
until disproven, the god-hypothesis remains viable.  As long as science is
unable to definitively prove its hypotheses, and in addition, get beyond
the barrier of that first fraction of a second of the universe's
existence, the origin of the universe is up for grabs.  Scientific
pronouncements to the contrary are just wishful thinking.
> 
> Andrew

Scott Walters
