> From: Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The Fool wrote: > > > >> It's idiotic just because you begin with the > >> axiom that "if God existed, he would act the way > >> I would act, if I were omni*.*". > > > > No he [the god of the bible] would act the way he > > portrayed as acting. But that contradicts what is > > written in said book. > > > You added another axiom: "God must act the way > he alllows men to understand how he acts". > > > > > >It is mathematically impossible to proove / disproove that a God exists. > > > According to Heinlein, it's mathematically possible to prove > _anything_. An exageration, but in this case it's valid.
Heinlein is wrong. It has been mathematically proven that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a god. > >It is possible to proove that this particular one described by the bible > >does not exist. > > > Just by adding extra-bible axioms :-) > > See? I am the skeptic, you are the believer. You have faith > that it's possible to prove the non-existence of the bible god :-P You define everything In terms of the bible. I define things in terms of mathematical objects. You are the believer. I am the skeptic. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
