From: 160955r@garnet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Revelation versus Reason
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:30:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.sgt4dINNn70
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <9204140821.AA12825@mail.Germany.EU.net> vkitzing@Germany.EU.net writes:
>
>In a reply dated 7 Apr 92 17:53:52 GMT Radu T. Tomescu at UCBerkeley 
>(RTT), (160955r@garnet.berkeley.edu) replied: 
>
>RTT> In article <9204071635.AA27619@mail.Germany.EU.net> 
>RTT> vkitzing@mpimfhd.UUCP (Eberhard von Kitzing (EvK)) writes: 
>
>EvK> Radu T.  Tomescu at UCBerkeley (160955r@garnet.berkeley.edu) postet 
>EvK> the following question: 
>
>RTT> 1) Is there or not factual or logical proof of existence of God?
>
>EvK> I think this is a very good question!  But before coming to an answer
>EvK> we should first look,  what a "logical proof" really does.  It allways
>EvK> has the following structure:
>EvK>    If I assume A, by means of reason I have also to accept B!
>
>RTT> Well how about: if A is true then B is also true (or false).  Why 
>RTT> shall I introduce assumptions ?  I know a sparrow is a bird;  this is a 
>RTT> sparrow,  therefore a bird.  I do not need to "assume" that a sparrow is 
>RTT> a bird.  The sentence :"this is a bird" rests on no assumption,  other 
>RTT> than semantic conventions on how to denominate phenomena..  
>
>The statement "A sparrow is a Bird" is a statement and not a 
>conclusion.  In a more formal version it says: "B (a sparrow) is an 
>element of A (the family of birds)".  

I did not say it was a conlcusion. If what you intend to say is that we do not
have "logical proof" of even the most minute things, then I have to remind you
of the necessity of a consensus, that must pre-exist to any logical communi-
cation. In my example, "a sparrow is a bird" is a fact, which both of us should
accept. "Reason" is by no means  an omni-potent tool; it helps us little to un-
derstand space and/or time. However, one can not introduce obviously absurd
statements, once a consensus has been created, just BECAUSE reason is not
exhaustive. In other words, just because I do can not figure out what infinity
is, I should not believe that Mary was virgin when she delivered Jesus....

>RTT> Well how about: if A is true then B is also true (or false).  
>
>This is correct,  but how doe you prove A?  I think the following 
>question is a good example for this.  A very common assumption in our 
>everyday life and in science is that the world exists for a long time.  
>All the historical "documents" are usually taken as evidence for this: 

Again: do you believe in fossils? Do you believe in radioactive-carbon 
dating? If so, then the world  is indeed very old: this conclusion fol-
lows from a long series of proof I have no time for; they are common
knowledge though... However, if you do not believe in these elements,
I would be very interested to know why you do not. I will, however, not
accept the rationale: "since you can not explain infinity the world MUST
be younger than you think.."

>But how would you prove that the "documents" are definitly older than 
>five minutes?  Allthough there is no reason not to believe that the
>documents are real,  there is definitly no logical or factual 
>proof that they are.  Consequently the most important things in life
>cannot be proven, we simply must belive in them!

How do you prove that God is not the illegitimate child of Warren Beaty,
who is an alien from Andromeda living in curved time and Queen Rosarita
of the Dark Side of Pluto?a And, if the most important things have to
be unquestionably believed, where do we take them from to start with?
Why the Bible? Why the sacred Baha'i text? Why not Dr.Seuss?  
>
>Therefore,  in modern theories about "how
>science works" one usually uses the term  that an assumption "works"
>or that something is evident.  The assumption that our universe is 
>several million years old and the documents are real works absolutly 
>well.  But from a logical point of view there is no proof that this 
>assumption is true!  

Logic needs a starting point., fact which, like Luke, you interpret as
evidence of existence of God, without any particular reason..Also,
gnoseology is a rather old discourse about "how science works"

>To make this reply not too long I will stop here.  Within the next
>days I will send one of the proofs, given in the Baha'i-Writings.

It will find me anxiously waiting...


Cheers!


-- 
Radu T. Tomescu at UCBerkeley
Department of Economics