From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:07:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.210344.29705@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.201545.20231@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>>How about observable consequences on the physical universe?
>>Is this a possibility?
>
>The hypothetical god in my example had observable consequences on the
>physical universe (namely, it created the universe).  But, without assuming

>its existence, such interpretation would not be scientifically valid.

In your explanation the universe is observable, but the fact that god
created it, rather than it just existing, would not be observable.  I am
looking for an analogy to his fingerprints.  In other words, what are the
observable consequences (within the universe [redundant]) of his creating
the universe.

>>In your example (which was deleted) there is no difference to the 
>>observer which event actually has taken place.  Therefore, there is no
>>information gained by assuming that God was the cause of the Big Bang.
>>It is unnecessary.
>
>Since there is no difference to the observer, the two models can co-exist
>without conflict.

I'm not sure what you mean.  Only one can be correct.

>I have already stated that assuming God's existence is unnecessary so you
>are quite right to say that no information is gained by assuming it (that's
>why it is unnecessary).  But, since no information is gained by assuming
>God's non-existence, that assumption is unnecessary as well.

Your statement really doesn't make sense, but I think I now understand your
misunderstanding.  The so called non-existence assumption is not an
assumption in the same sense as assuming god.  In looking at the two models,
both of them take nature as a given based on observations.  To assume god
though, we go beyond our observations; we assume what we don't see.  On the
other hand, we don't observe god so it is not an assumption to use only our
observations (nature as given) as the basis of the natural model.  We don't
have to assume that what we don't see is not there; it is not much of an a
assumption to trust your observations.  God would have to be known to exist
to count non-existence as an assumption in the natural model.

>>Answer this if you can:
>>
>>What would be the difference between the universe we live in and a
universe
>>without God?  How would we know the difference?
>
>As far as science is concerned, there would be no difference.  This is
because
>science and religion are independant.  God's existence or lack thereof has
>no bearing on science.

You may want to reconsider, because I am not sure that you understand the
implications of what you just wrote.  We can safely substitute the phrase
'any observer in the universe' for 'science' as was my original intent (I
didn't mention science, but they are the same).  Now read what you wrote
again.  God's existence or lack thereof has no bearing on any observer in
the universe.  This implies a closed universe, and an unnecessary god.
Do you still believe it?  I know I agree with it.


Jim Copeland
-- 

What we really need to do to bring peace to the middle-east
is to get the Jews together with the Muslims
and teach them to act like good Christians.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism