From: TURTLE              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: relig & logic??
Date & Time: 05/18/91 23:17:41
Message Number 16876

Mathmatical axioms do not share any significant relationship to
religious faith because even though no sufficiently complex mathmatical
system is entirely provable, the system as a whole (a) is self-
consistent and (b) the axioms have consequences which are observable
and provable. Religious models can sometimes approach condition (a)
but not condition (b). This is the sort of semantic hairsplitting I
was talking about: no matter how you slice it, there is still a
quantifiable, qualitative difference between a leap of fath of a
religious nature and a 'leap of faith' that is not religious. Belief in
God is fundamentally a leap of faith that by its nature cannot be proven
or disproven in any way whatsoever. This belief is quite different in
kind from acceptance of a mathematic axiom.
 
Your second point falls into the 'existentialist bullshit' category.
Sure, you can argue that nothing outside yourself exists until Hell
freezes over, but it doesn't get you anywhere; if your 'imaginary' next-
door neighbor throws an 'imaginary' brick at your 'imaginary' head with
sufficient velocity, I guarantee you'll perceive 'imaginary' pain.
What's more, the phenomenon is repeatable (if he does it again you'll
still percieve the same imaginary pain) and verifiable (all your
imaginary neighbors will agree that they are all perceiving you lying
in a pool of your own blood). Therefore, all such arguments are irrele-
vant; the universe behaves as though it were /not/ imaginary, so
believing that it is is pointless.