Re: Random behavior (to Dave)

Greg Mills (gmills@fullnet.net)
Sat, 12 Apr 1997 03:20:55 GMT

>(DAVE 4/11) Greg: Yes, in a way it is - I certainly have to wonder =
about=20
>it at times. The only difference I think, which allows me to even come=20
>close to accepting it is that this "being" is sentient, while this =
universe=20
>is not - a sentient being creating what is not sentient makes more sense=
to=20
>me then the non-sentient being just "being". But the self-existency of =
God?=20
> No, I cannot understand it.
>

(MILLS 4/11) You lost me on this one. Why is it any more difficult
to imagine matter "just being" than God "just being"? I think that is
your emotion talking Dave.

>(DAVE 4/11) Greg: Well, it is only natural that we all can relate to=20
>matter more than anything else. But the self-existency of matter? =20
>My query above still is open - without design, we have ended up as we =
are at=20
>this point as a result of one out of an infinity of possibilities - this=
is=20
>the part I find very "troublesome", if not hard to believe.
>

(MILLS 4/11) Well let's just assume a different "possibility" had
occurred then you (or whatever was there) would say "we have ended up
as we are at this point as a result of one out of an infinitiy of
possibilities", and so on for WHATEVER possibility actually manifested
itself. If some possibility had occurred that didn't manifest itself
in beings who could wonder, then they wouldn't know it. Whatever
beings happened to occur whenever and where ever they occur, I am sure
they would find it "hard to believe".

I'll bet that out of the tens of millions of possibilities, that
yearly winner of the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstake finds it
"hard to believe".

Greg Mills
gmills@fullnet.net