[net.religion] Bill Peter

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