hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (03/04/85)
========================================================================= > { from: bill peter } > > Similarly, with the existence of a deity. There is no way to prove the > existence of a deity, but a good case can be made for the fact that > certain peculiar physical coincidences and the structure of mathematical > and physical laws INDICATES to many intelligent people the existence of a > creator. Really?! Please post some of these "peculiar physical coincidences and structure of mathematical and physical laws" that indicate the existence of a creator. If these mythical things really do exist, I think people in places like the ICR or the Moral Majority would have quickly snagged them and use them for propaganda. I have yet to see one such creature. > Note the existence of such a creator is not inconsistent with > any known physical law or experimental observation. Note that the existence of twenty creators is not inconsistent with any known physical law or experimental observation. Nor is Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, but I doubt you have as much faith in them as you do in the singular deity that you refer to. ========================================================================= Keebler
cs193aae@unm-la.UUCP (03/06/85)
> > { from: bill peter } > > Similarly, with the existence of a deity. There is no way to prove the > > existence of a deity, but a good case can be made for the fact that > > certain peculiar physical coincidences and the structure of mathematical > > and physical laws INDICATES to many intelligent people the existence of a > > creator. > [Keebler:] > Really?! Please post some of these "peculiar physical coincidences and > structure of mathematical and physical laws" that indicate the existence > of a creator. If these mythical things really do exist, I think people > in places like the ICR or the Moral Majority would have quickly snagged > them and use them for propaganda. I have yet to see one such creature. When you get out of elementary school and learn to read properly, maybe then we can have a discussion. But I see no purpose in wasting time with you if you're going to liken my philosophical views to those held by people in the ICR and Moral Majority. > >[moi:] > > Note the existence of such a creator is not inconsistent with > > any known physical law or experimental observation. > [Keebler:] > Note that the existence of twenty creators is not inconsistent with > any known physical law or experimental observation. Nor is Santa Claus > or the Easter Bunny, but I doubt you have as much faith in them as you > do in the singular deity that you refer to. When you retire from your mind-reading career and write a book about your exploits, I hope you mention how you deduced from so short a posting the true extent of my beliefs in a deity. If you can read my mind now, I hope you take my advice and jump into the Monongahela river. -- bill peter
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/06/85)
In article <262@unm-la.UUCP> cs193aae@unm-la.UUCP writes: > When you get out of elementary school and learn to read properly, maybe > then we can have a discussion. But I see no purpose in wasting time > with you if you're going to liken my philosophical views to those held > by people in the ICR and Moral Majority. > > When you retire from your mind-reading career and write a book > about your exploits, I hope you mention how you deduced from so > short a posting the true extent of my beliefs in a deity. If you > can read my mind now, I hope you take my advice and jump into the > Monongahela river. Here I see nothing but two kinds of fallacies of argument: ad hominem attacks and the stand on dignity. The previous note employed ridicule, which is also a fallacy, but it did mention several valid points which this note fails to address. Can we see some real response, please? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
iannucci@sjuvax.UUCP (iannucci) (03/12/85)
In article <262@unm-la.UUCP> cs193aae@unm-la.UUCP writes: >When you get out of elementary school and learn to read properly, maybe >then we can have a discussion. > >When you retire from your mind-reading career and write a book >about your exploits, I hope you mention how you deduced from so >short a posting the true extent of my beliefs in a deity. If you >can read my mind now, I hope you take my advice and jump into the >Monongahela river. [BILL PETER] Bill, I don't see the purpose of this posting to the net. Instead of responding to Mr. Keebler, and explaining what you meant, you merely abused him with unnecessary sarcasm. I'm not saying that sarcasm doesn't make for some interesting debates, but it should be controlled and above all, it should be used to back up one's arguments, none of which I found here. -- Dave Iannucci St. Joseph's University, Philadelphia ...{allegra|astrovax|bpa|burdvax}!sjuvax!iannucci "A witty saying proves nothing. " --Voltaire
wkp@lanl.ARPA (03/15/85)
(from Ernest Hua aka Keebler:) >I am not going to wait that long. I did not liken your views to those of >you-know-who's. I simply said that they are the ones that will quickly >pick up and abuse that which you claim existed. They also pick up and >abuse a LOT of other things which can hardly be liken to their views. >(e.g. scientific evidence for evolutionary theories) The problem lies with your initial reaction to my posting. Just because I posited that intelligent people can see indications of a design or plan in the universe, this automatically meant that I believed in angels, devils, and holy spirits. The statement I did make (see below) was in response to atheists' beliefs that if the 10*10 neurons in their brains cannot allow them to see evidence for the existence of a deity, then it is unreasonable to believe in a god. I think this especially ridiculous since they fully expect the 10*10 neurons (or 10**14 synapses) to fully understand a universe of (by current estimates) AT LEAST 10**80 particles. What sheer presumptiousness! Although I do not discount the possibility that the present state of the universe is just a random distribution of events, I consider this from the scientific point of view rather unlikely (e.g., try calculating the probability that carbon, oxygen, etc. atoms would by random methods form a DNA molecule. Then compare this time to the known age of the universe!) In any case, I find it hard to believe that laws such as of the conservation of energy-momentum or of general relativity were a giant coincidence, a random throw of the dice, on a universal time scale. What is interesting is that not only is nature (or as the old physicists wrote it, Nature) unified, but our minds seem especially able to appreciate this unity in an aesthetic way. I make no conclusions from this statement except that this does INDICATE to some people the existence of a plan, or a design, in the universe, i.e., a creator. >> { from: bill peter } >> When you retire from your mind-reading career and write a book >> about your exploits, I hope you mention how you deduced from so >> short a posting the true extent of my beliefs in a deity. If you >> can read my mind now, I hope you take my advice and jump into the >> Monongahela river. >(from Ernest Hua aka Keebler:) >Why did you bother mentioning your original statement if you did not >support its implications? one of which happens to be that you believe >in a creator and are defending your position ... Why do you insist on telling ME what my positions were? All that I proposed was (and I quote!): "Similarly, with the existence of a deity. There is no way to prove the existence of a deity, but a good case can be made for the fact that certain peculiar physical coincidences and the structure of mathematical and physical laws INDICATES to many intelligent people the existence of a creator." If you still don't understand this statement, write me by e-mail, and we can discuss your intellectual problems in private. By the way, there is only one river around here into which I could jump: the Rio Grande. But it's twenty miles away, and only a few feet deep. -- bill peter