From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: More "Best Wishes"
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 05:09:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.194533.7565@rz-berlin.mpg.de> dabrowski@rz-berlin.mpg.de (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>>>Let's try from the beginning, but briefly. The presumed scenario could
>>>be for example as follows.
>> [deleted]
>> The problem with this scenario is that it seems to lack any 
>> connection with your earlier one.
>YOUR problem. BTW, are you able to ask specific questions, or you can 
>only formulate argument-free notes? This is a serious criticism from 
>my side. Please take care to use arguments instead of empty words.

It sounded like you attempted to explain your scenario by giving another,
unconnected, one.  I attempted to state this.  Sorry if you don't like it.

>> Furthermore, you just made it up.
>It's as made up as others. For example as every one that uses no God.

It's ad-hoc, but the rest of your argument depends on it.  You were on the
losing side of an argument, and had nothing to explain the flaws in it; then
you invented this new, previously-unseen, proposition just because you needed
something to plug the hole.  I don't do this.  Even if something I say only
works if there's no God (and I can't recall any, since most of my arguments
had implicit "if there is/isn't a God, then..." in them), I did not make up
that premise as I went along, but rather it was clear from the start that I
was using it.

>> more to the point, it's not just on _earth_ that this scenario can't 
>> be told from yours.
>How can you tell that? You are on _earth_, as far as I can tell: 

The conditions of my scenario are such that there are places other than on
Earth that it cannot be told from yours.

>>>Sure, He may prove His existence to their SOULS. But to accept this kind 
>>>of a personal proof you must at first recognize the existence of your 
>>>own soul - and this recognition, when analysed on the bodily level, must 
>>>- as every bodily idea - have always a logical status of a belief.
>> Jarek, you keep using words such as "must" in here, which tend to imply 
>> some sort of logical necessity relating the parts of your sentence, and 
>> the actual sentence seems to lack one.  Why "must" I believe in a soul 
>> before God can prove his existence to me? 
>Because you don't recognize your soul, so "I" doesn't mean "my soul" to 
>you; "I" means "my body".

Why do I have to _recognize_ my soul before God can prove something to it?

>First "I" must mean "my soul", then "I" must
>decide that it trusts God (these two events may be interchanged),

Why can't I say "If there is no God, I give this permission because a
nonexistent God cannot harm me; if there is a God, I give this permission
because only a trustworthy God would need my permission."?

>and
>only then God may prove His existence according to your free will.
>But
>as long as "my body" lives, "I" am closely bound to it and even though
>"my soul" can be sure that God exists, "my body" doubts it because it 
>can't neither prove that soul exists nor prove that God exists.

Another question: why can't God prove it to my body?  My body already lacks
free will, so God can do anything to it without violating free will.
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)