On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 03:25:14PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2002, William T Goodall wrote:
>
> > This follows from basic logic. If you insert a false axiom into a
> > system ("There is a God" for example) you can then prove *anything
> > at all* to be true, and thereby justify any act.
> And (now I'm nit-picking) how can you _disprove_ an unprovable premise
> eg "There is a God?" (All those catechism lessons, and I only remember
It is not necessary to disprove the existence of "God". It is sufficient
for William's statement that no-one can prove the existence of "God". If
you insert "there is a God" (and all that entails) into a system,
then you can use it to justify a lot of things ("God told me to do
it"). But unless someone can prove that "there is a God", then all the
justifications based on that "axiom" are meaningless to someone with a
different set of axioms.
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
