From: Bill Roh (billroh@churchofvirus.com)
Date: Mon Mar 18 2002 - 16:24:01 MST
I see Athe nonrex
So...
I say that there are "green frilled nurples" (GFNs) with teats on their heads. They are all powerful, control time and the very laws of physics completely. They exist I say -
I'll even write it down - so it carries the same power of human conceptions as "god".
Now - prove that GFNs do not exist. HAH - You cannot disprove my GFNs, just like you cannot disprove Zeus, unicorns or dragons.
By your argument, anything that can be conceived of cannot be proven to not exist.
My argument is: Human conception of any thing is an argument against existence outside of conception alone. If humans conceive it, but have no evidence to support it - it does
not exist outside of conception. It's easy to prove that all conceptions of gods have so far been conceptions of man. After all - every bit of evidence for a god is man made -
find one that is not and you are the winner!
So long as the conceptions are purely of man's invention, and all evidence points to man's creation of god, then to my logic - the closest to one can come to saying there is a
god is to say that: There is a concept held by many humans, and they call this concept god.
Now, you could say something like - "Man conceived of black holes" or something of that nature. Well yes, we did, but this is a possible conclusion of a complex mathematical
model and has some sort of evidence to give tangibility to the concept. Tangibility lacking in a god notion.
For tangible things, Existence is that which occupies at least space and time. If it does that - it exists. Ideas, programs, etc... are no exception - patterns exist of things
that occupy space and time.
I'm such a reductionist - wish there was some way to avoid it
Bill Roh
athe nonrex wrote:
> [David Lucifer]
> >Not true. If the existence of God necessarily implies some state of affairs, and that state of affairs is not true, then you can logically conclude that God does not exist.
>
> [athenonrex]
> but the existence of "god" or "gods" is not dependant on it/them doing
> anything at all. the one requirement of existance is simply being.
> and since we cannot see *god* or *gods* one must logically conclude
> that there is insufficent information to make a definite conclusion
> as to the existance of such beings.
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> --->Get your free email @godisdead.com
> Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Run a small business? Then you need professional email like you@yourbiz.com from Everyone.net http://www.everyone.net?tag
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:45 MDT