From: sdr57@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Mandatory negatives (was Re: Agnostics and Athiests)
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:21:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.163544.19492@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>In article <1992Jul31.142141.28266@cas.org> sdr57@cas.org () writes:
>>Finally, I would point out again that the *absence* of conclusive evidence
>>for a deity may be taken (if one believes that the deity wishes the choice
>>to worship or not to worship to be made freely) as evidence of the
>>existence of the deity.
>
>The 'free will' argument presented here is a good, succinct,
>description of the problem argued often by believers and disbelievers.
>
My apologies to Mr. Heydt. In a previous post I stated that my
point seemed to have eluded him. It appears I was misled by the lag
between transmission and receipt of messages on the net.

>The issue of demonstration or proof of existence isn't so clear cut,
>though.  It depends on the 'description' (powers, character, etc.) of
>the deity being proposed.  If the proposed entity merely sets the
>universe going (and extended version of " . . . and God said
>[Maxwells' Equations]", as it were) and then never intervense, the
>difference in the universe from a natural one will almost certainly be
>undetectable--at least at this late date.  On the other hand, if the
>proposed entity or her agents actively intervene in the continuing
>operation of the universe, then one could (in theory, at least)
>construct experiments designed to detect the natural consequences of
>supernatural intervention.  Many entities have been supposed to exist
>that take an active role in the natural universe through supernatural
>actions.  It is interesting to note that the characteristics of the
>proposed entities tends towards the first type more and more as we
>learn more about the natural universe.  I think this may be construed
>as a trend, with the limiting point being a toss-up between a purely
>natural explanation and an entity of the the first type.
>
>since I made the original posting, I have concluded that one can
>actually prove (at least to the vernacular meaning of the term) the
>existence or non-existence of an supernatural entity.  What is needed
>is an agreement by all relevant parties about what constitutes a clear
>and unambiguous test--that is a jointly agreed upon experiment with
>the possible outcomes distinguishable and with those results having a
>clear menaing with respect to the initial question.  The difficulties
>lie in two major areas.  The first being to get a wide-spread enough
>agreement about what is a suitable experiment.  The second is that
>whichever side 'loses' in the results will probably disavow the
>validity of the experiment.  I think it is worth noting in this
>context that exactly the same problems occur in investigations of
>claims of human paranormal abilities.  What is truly startling
>(well . . . not really) is the reluctance of theists the admit that
>the same sort of protocols used to work with paranormal claims are
>applicable to theistic claims.
>
Very well. I propose a supernatural entity, omniscient, and capable of
intervening in human affairs in a manner which is completely
indistingushable from natural chance (remember that, at least if
you believe the books on chaos, a butterfly beating its wings
can produce a hurricane - all the entity has to do is get the
butterfly to twitch at the right time to send a storm to destroy
the unrighteous). Please propose an experiment.

******************************************************************************
Rogue academic. They're dangerous when they go feral, academics are.

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley "Ya nee speon" Roberts


Newsgroups: rec.arts.books