hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (03/07/85)
_____________________________________________________________________________ > > > { 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. > > > { from: me } > > 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. > > { from: bill peter } > 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 become mature enough not to insult others; when you learn to use rational statements; etc ... 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) Now, please produce what you claim to exist in your original statement. > > > { from: bill peter } > > > Note the existence of such a creator is not inconsistent with > > > any known physical law or experimental observation. > > > { from: me } > > 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. > > { 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. 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 ... If you, in fact, did not support the above implication, why the sarcastic remark? rather than a quick-and-dirty explanation of your position ... It is quite obvious that you prefer to use a childish counter-offensive, rather than a set of rational statements. I am not going to wish that you jump into the Monongahela river. I am not even going to say some- thing like "I have a better choice of rivers into which you can jump." Instead, I am asking that you provide a decent response to my previous comments. If you were just in a bad mood, say so. _____________________________________________________________________________ Keebler