From: Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger)
Subject: Re: Help
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:20:28 GMT

In article <kmr4.182.721609467@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.192506.26872@samba.oit.unc.edu> Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>>STUFF DELETED
>>I'm sure there are abundant examples where you are trusting the claims of
>>a few mere men (or women) without witnessing proof yourself.
>
>
>	First, I may not have witnessed every scientific experiment. 
>However, I don't have to! *IF* I wanted to perform a particular experiment, 
>I could do so ( provided I had the support)! If one makes a startling 
>discovery, which sounds improbably, other scientists more certainly will 
>verify it. That is why, for publication in any reputable journel, you must 
>provide the test procedures, not just the result. 
>
>	For an excellent example of this checks and balance system, I point 
>you in the direction of fushion in a jar...
>
>	However, how can I even *conceive* of a way to test the hypothesis 
>that "god wills X", let alone perform it????
>
>
I will say it again, you were not here to witness the proof of God's
existence. The proof given was not of a reproducible nature. Just as most
events before the introduction of film.

>
>>>As a second point, I'd like to assert that no human can even hope to talk
>>intellectually about the reality that exists beyond human scope. You have
>>no idea whatsoever whether unicorns really do exist or not because you have
>>not had the opportunity to visit any other planets in any other solar
>>system. So how can you be so bold to discount the existence of anything?
>
>	Well, I can assert that on the Earth, unicorns as living breathing 
>creatures ( no dolls or pictures ) do not exist. As part of the definition 
>of a unicorn, it must be normal air breathing, have access to cute human 
>princess, etc. Would you care to point out another planet which fits the 
>feasibility scale for human life?
>
>	The point is, we have not one iota of evidence, no matter how 
>flimsy, that unicorns exist on other planets. And, we have alot of 
>supporting evidence that they feasibly can't.
>	

Other planets in OTHER SOLAR SYSTEMS. Reread the damn statement before wasting
all that precious energy telling me something I already know.

>	Whether or not god exists is unknowable, imho, but to state that god 
>exists as a known truth is a fallacy.

Can't say it's a known truth because I did not witness it, but I take the
words of many witnesses to be as good as it gets.

>>STUFF DELETED
>>body?>>*Note: This is absolutely NO claim for Christianity or any other 
>>religion>       but merely a strong validation for eternal life. (no 
>>reference of>       Heaven, Hell, God, angels, etc. just the facts)
>>
>>I'd appreciate any input and anybody who would like to know where this
>>laboratory is, I can certainly give you that info.
>
>	These people wouldn't be christian scientists, would they?


Sorry Sir, no. The information had no connection to ANY religion. In fact,
I would think the Christians would be quite upset with this stuff. (though
I don't know that for sure, I can only guess since they seem very 
temperamental in general)

Michelle
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion