From: ingles@robin.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Is there a god? It doesn't matter ...
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 13:51:46 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <1992Apr1.032813.7551@rz-berlin.mpg.de>, dabrowski@rz-berlin.mpg.de (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
> In <bMb+WW+@engin.umich.edu> Ray Ingles defends Iain:
> 
> -Iain:
> >> >evidence may not discredit theology, but only because the theologist
> >> >would try to argue that the evidence is part of gods plan.
> >> >How do you argue with that? You cannot!
> -Jarek:
> >> And this seems to drive you mad: I CAN'T TOUCH THEM!!!!!!!!!!!
> -Ray:
> > And hence their usefulness as ideas is rendered somewhat doubtful.
> >In my "metaphysics," anyway, which you can't touch.
> >
> I can't touch it. But your criterion is doubtful, by your criterion...

 No, no, only by *your* criterion. By mine, it's perfectly
reasonable.

> -Iain:
> >> >Don't tell me I need god, but don't know it. You have tried
> >> >that arguement (or a derivative of it) before, and it was rejected.
> -Jarek:
> > But not disproven.
> -Ray:
> > You've spent a lot of time saying that nothing can be disproven,
> >since it fits within some kind of metaphysical framework. Therefore,
> >nothing would convince you that your argument had been disproven,
> >so "But not disproven" is a null statement.
> >
> No. It stresses the fact that Iain's statement is weak. He can only
> say "I prefer to believe (think) otherwise, but I have no arguments". 

 But yours is just as much of a null statement; indeed, worse, since
you can't know what Iain is thinking better than Iain can. I.e. if
Iain says he doesn't need a God, it makes more sense to trust him than
you when you say Iain just doesn't *know* he needs a God. Iain, after
all, is the world's best authority on Iain.
 Iain's statement *may* be weak, from your viewpoint. But it seems
that even from your viewpoint your assertion is weaker.
 IOndeed, you can make no stronger statement than Iain, or anyone
else, from your viewpoint. I mean, sll statments of this nature
seem to be equally 'weak,' or equally 'strong.'

> -Iain:
> >> >The limits of knowledge have not made me aware of our faith. What it has 
> >> >made me aware of are the limits of our knowledge. [...] I do not know the 
> >> >limits of human underestanding. This is something I can never know [...]
> -Jarek:
> >> That's your problem. I'm not responsible for your logics.
> -Ray:
> > Who said it was a problem? Some people enjoy the prospect of
> >always learnign more...
> >
> I said this. Iain's comment has nothing to do with learning more. Iain 
> said at first that he is aware of the limits of our knowledge, and then 
> he said that there's no limit of human understanding. I replied that I
> am not responsible for this logics. Understanding without knowledge? 
> It's Iain's problem, not mine.

 As Iain has already pointed out, the first part refers to *present*
limits on knowledge. The second to future limits on human understanding
(which may or may not exist). Why do you seem to be the only one
not to have understood this?

> -Iain:
> >> >Given past experience, I feel (believe?) that we have the
> >> >ability to know and understand a hell of a lot.
> -Jarek:
> >> Indeed, a hell of a lot. So what? 
> -Ray:
> > Perhaps enough to make what we don't know trivial? (I don't necessarily
> >believe this, but it makes your contention questionable...)
> >
> No. You can't change the fact that every human opinion has at its 
> roots improvable statements. That's the meaning of my "so what".

 (Uh, I think you meant "unprovable." Unless you really think all
human statements can be 'improved'...:-> )
 But, of course, the very statement you just made ('every human
statement has at its roots...) is itself unproveable, and hence
is no 'fact.'
 You see? This is just a 'metaphysical' version of the Liar's
Paradox.

> -Iain:
> >> >You cannot prove religion wrong because it is set up that way.
> -Jarek:
> >> Exactly as you cannot prove atheism because it is set up that way. 
> >> This "setup" means "metaphysics", my dear Iain.
> -Ray:
> > Oops. Jarek, an omnipotent being could give us absolute knowledge.
> >You said so yourself. So by deifnition, atheism can be disproven
> >(in your own metaphysics, anyway) whereas theism of your type
> >cannot.
> >
> No oops. First of all, the requirement to disprove something is adopted
> to make theories VERIFIABLE. In your example atheism and theism are 
> verifiable under exactly THE SAME conditions. That's what my reply 
> meant: Iain's argument was invalid, it worked against Iain himself. And
> second, we're not talking now about us in Heaven but about us here...

 No, the 'requirement to disprove' is adopted to make theories
FALSIFIABLE, not VERIFIABLE. Atheism can be falsified (*strong*
atheism, anyway) in the same way as the statement "There are no
black swans" can be falsified. All you need do is produce a God
or a black swan.
 Whereas "There exists a God" can never be proven false; you can
always say, "Well, you didn't look over *there.* It might be there."
 Finally, are you saying that a God *couldn't* give humans in this
life absolute knowledge?

>              Jarek

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.