🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:22:10 -0700, in alt.atheism, "M.C.Harrison"
<nospam@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc> etched in the space-time continuum

>Don Kresch sighed, picked up his keyboard, and his creative muse
>produced:
>> 
>> On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 06:26:25 GMT, in alt.atheism, wizkid@eskimo.com (J. Michael
>> Phillips) etched in the space-time continuum
>> 
>> >On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:15:45 GMT, George Reese <borg@imaginary.com>
>> >>
>> >>While one cannot say if somethign exists outside the universe, one can
>> >>certainly say that such things have no causal relation to our
>> >>universe.  If they did, they would be part of our universe.
>> >
>> >That's not true.
>> 
>>         Yes, it most certainly is. To interact with anything in the universe, it
>> must be part of the universe.
>
>This is a question of what is meant by the term "universe".

	A dictionary can be a useful tool.

>
>> >If one causes a ripple in a pond, does one become
>> >PART of the pond?
>>         No, but one interacts with the pond and must obey the laws we have
>> discovered about water, etc. 'Sides, it's matter, we're matter....we can
>> interact with it. What about "gawd"?
>
>There is no reason to assume that something which is not of this
>universe be constrained to interact only under what seems to those of
>this universe to be universal laws.

	Yes, there most certainly is. It's called Identity and causality. To
interact with something in this universe, the laws of this universe must be
obeyed. Else it violates identity---a thing is itself and only itself. A thing
acts in ways according to its nature. Your wish to negate that is very xer.

> In fact, it may well be the reverse.
>E.g., energy conservation is not conserved in this case. If a three
>dimensional being interacts with a two dimensional world, things that
>are impossible in the two-dimensional world may happen.

	If a 3D being interacts in a 2D world, the 2D beings see slices of the 3D
being. Get a fucking clue.

>
>> > Can one not make ripples in the pond from outside
>> >the pond?
>>         Yeah. The pond is of the universe. We are of the universe. Your point is
>> flawed.
>
>Sure, define universe as "everything that exists",

	That is how the universe is defined. NMP if you want to special plead.

> and it includes any putative deities. However, we would then want to ask if the continuum we
>presently describe as the universe, is "everything that exists", and if
>there were to be a deity, it clearly would not be. So, we would have to
>use the word "continuum" instead.

	No, just universe.


Don
alt.atheism atheist #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

I'm the bastard who killed Kenny