From: vkitzing@mpimfhd.UUCP (Eberhard von Kitzing - MPImF - Heidelberg - FRG)
Subject: Re: Revelation versus Reason
Reply-To: vkitzing@Germany.EU.net
Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:16:00 GMT


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)".  

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:  
EvK> Or how would you prove that our universe has not been created or came 
EvK> into being by a pure accident just five minutes before you received 
EvK> this mail?  All the factual historical "documents" are thus only five 
EvK> minutes old.  

RTT> I am afraid I lost you here...What is the meaning of "thus" in your 
RTT> second sentence?  Is it: "given that we assume the universe is five 
RTT> minutes old all documents are no more than 5 minutes old"?  You seem to 
RTT> try to show that reasoning does not work since you need an assumption 
RTT> to start with,  and,  by starting from the wrong assumption you may end 
RTT> up with absurd con- clusions.  

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!

RTT> This is indeed true: starting from the wrong assumption you may end 
RTT> up with the wrong result.  A perfect example is:"Since the Bible is of 
RTT> divine inspiration,  it is true".  ...
(Even if I assume that the bible is Divinely inspired, I may be
compleately wrong with my interpretation of it!!!!) ...
RTT> However,  not all "reasonings" necessarily start from wrong 
RTT> assumptions.  Nothing would ever get done,  bridges would not be built,  
RTT> and we could not communicate via e-mail,  etc.  Obviously,  some 
RTT> "reasonings" start from the right assumption.  

The major point I wanted to make is  that there is no proof in a
logical sense  that the assumptions related to building bridge and
e-mail nets are *true*.  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!  

I think we have to start with such "gedankenexperiments" if we want to
discuss proofs for the existence of God.  If we cannot agree on such
basic things, we would only fight with words and nothing would come
out of this for both of us.

EvK> With this introduction in mind, it is possible to give some logical
EvK> proofs of the existence of God. The holy Writing of the Baha'i-Faith
EvK> contain several of them.  If you are interested in, we could
EvK> discuss them.

RTT> I would love to. I know little if any about the Baha'i Faith , spare
RTT> a few historical facts. 

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.

------------------------------------------------------------

Eberhard von Kitzing
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Medizische Forschung
Jahnstr. 29, D6900 Heidelberg, FRG

FAX : +49-6221-486 459  (work)
Tel.: +49-6221-486 467  (work)
Tel.: +49-6221-385 129  (home)

email: vkitzing@mpimfhd.EU.net