hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (02/05/85)
_______________________________________________________________________________
I would like to know why a lot of people believe in a deity or in the super-
natural. Is it because ...
[A] your parents or relatives or pastors or friends have always
believed?
[B] you have experienced a miracle or some other supernatural
event?
[C] you have studied {whatever..you fill in this space} extensively
and have concluded from your studies that this is so?
[D] you have thought about it for a while and have concluded that
there are such things?
[E] you just believe in them without any reason?
[F] {you fill in this space if you do not see your situation above}
_______________________________________________________________________________
Personally, I have yet to find any `good` reason to believe in any particular
god or gods. Can you give me one? (I am completely serious!) If you respond
to this request, please give me SPECIFIC details! I have yet to encounter
anyone who can give me anything other than some rosy poetic essay telling
me about Jesus Christ dying for me. If it were anyone else other than Jesus,
I bet the average person will say,"Gee, what a silly thing to do!" I bet some
will even say something more provocative. I have sent for and received a book
well advertised on TV called POWER FOR LIVING. It seems to me that they are
making a lot of assumptions before they even begin to write it. (For one
thing, the book is definitely oriented toward Christianity while ruling
out all other religions.) It is also rather nasty as it portrays the space
shuttle as though it were nothing more than scrap metal. It says that the
eagle is far superior to the shuttle. (I would like to see what happens to
the eagle on reentry!)
By the way, there are a lot of religions! Only ONE could be absolutely
right, if any at all. Therefore, if you are not religiously neutral,
the odds are against you!
Comments? Any one?
_______________________________________________________________________________
KEEBLERptc@cybvax0.UUCP (Peter Crames) (02/07/85)
> I would like to know why a lot of people believe in a deity or in the super- > natural. Is it because ... > [F] {you fill in this space if you do not see your situation above} > KEEBLER Here is why I believe God exists ... My body, including my brain, is a machine. A machine can't cause itself to move (or think, in the case of the brain). A machine needs an outside agent to cause it to move. Since I can't cause my own thoughts or actions, my thoughts and actions must be caused by an outside agent. That outside agent must be God, who must cause all thoughts and actions as a result of Her/His First Cause or Big Bang. God is a programmer, and the universe is a computer. If you understand this, re-read this message substituting words as follows: my -> your I -> you God -> I or Me Peter Crames ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!ptc
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (02/08/85)
In article <205@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA> hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) writes: >_______________________________________________________________________________ > >I would like to know why a lot of people believe in a deity or in the super- >natural. Is it because ... > > MY REASON: > > [C] you have studied { CHRISTIANITY } extensively > and have concluded from your studies that this is so? > >Comments? Any one? I could give you hundreds of reasons why I believe in Christianity, but I would be writing all day. I would like to suggest a couple of books that might begin to scratch the surface: 1. Evidence That Demands a Verdict ; Josh McDowell 2. Why Believe The Bible ; John McArthur Jr. 3. The Epistles to the Colossians ; The Apostle Paul (esp. 2nd ch.) As a net reader, I am sure you will be interested in reading some intellectually stimulating books on the issues. If you have any other questions, please ask, and if you still would like my personal input on the subject, I will be glad to prepare and send you one through the net mail! Dan Boskovich
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (02/09/85)
>Here is why I believe God exists ... > >My body, including my brain, is a machine. A machine can't cause >itself to move (or think, in the case of the brain). A machine >needs an outside agent to cause it to move. Since I can't cause >my own thoughts or actions, my thoughts and actions must be caused >by an outside agent. That outside agent must be God, who must cause >all thoughts and actions as a result of Her/His First Cause or Big >Bang. God is a programmer, and the universe is a computer. This was brought up before. The response is: If God has thoughts and actions which motivate your thoughts and actions, where did God's thoughts and actions come from? Who is God's programmer? And who is God's programmer's programmer? And who is ... (ad nauseum) You can see this is an infinite regression. At SOME point you must (unless you belive the universe is a product of infinite regression) posit an intelligence which is self-sufficient, in this sense (the First Cause). However, once you do this, you must allow that it is POSSIBLE for some intelligence to exist without outside motivation, and then you loose your initial argument (which is that it is not possible). Since I have yet to hear of any religion which goes back more than God's God, I can not accept this as a logical argument for any existing religion's God. -- Ken Arnold ================================================================= Of COURSE we can implement your algorithm. We've got this Turing machine emulator...
colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (02/09/85)
> Here is why I believe God exists ... > > My body, including my brain, is a machine. A machine can't cause > itself to move (or think, in the case of the brain). ... > If you understand this, re-read this message substituting words > as follows: my -> your > I -> you This looks very convincing. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to me, because my body is a dog and my brain is a cat. And dogs and cats can move without any help. Maybe you should get a cat brain! They're much nicer than machine brains, because cats have more fun than machines. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...decvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) (02/10/85)
> I would like to know why a lot of people believe in a deity or in the super- > natural. Is it because ... > [A] your parents or relatives or pastors or friends have always > believed? > [B] you have experienced a miracle or some other supernatural > event? > [C] you have studied {whatever..you fill in this space} extensively > and have concluded from your studies that this is so? > [D] you have thought about it for a while and have concluded that > there are such things? > [E] you just believe in them without any reason? > [F] {you fill in this space if you do not see your situation above} As I've been trying to show, it's a much deeper question than that. There are any number of reasons that are offered that, upon careful analysis, have no basis in logical reasoning. Given that so many of the reasons are based on presumptions (like saying "There must be a god in order for there to be universal justice/control/absolute good and evil" without thought to why the listed things MUST exist in the absence of evidence for them), and on subjective perspectives (which we've seen in multiple individuals to be conflicting and contradictory---and therefore suspect), one must ask: With the viability of the methods of analysis and decision here so questionable, do you simply believe in the existence of god a priori without any need for real reasoned evidence? If so, why? One hopes the "why" question would be answered without referring back to the faulty examples offered above. So often this is not the case, and the debate simply recycles itself again. > I have yet to encounter > anyone who can give me anything other than some rosy poetic essay telling > me about Jesus Christ dying for me. If it were anyone else other than Jesus, > I bet the average person will say,"Gee, what a silly thing to do!" That's an important point. People DO in fact say such things about other people's "obviously wrong" beliefs. But when confronted with the same point themselves coming from others, they say "No, that's not just ANYBODY you're talking about, that's Jesus/whomever." Working first FROM the assumption that their belief in the existence of a god and in their particular image of its form, and THEN beginning analysis. Example: "Why is life so full of problems? Because god designed it that way knowing it would be better for humans to suffer and struggle than to have an easy life." The assumption of god comes FIRST, then the analysis. > I have sent for and received a book > well advertised on TV called POWER FOR LIVING. It seems to me that they are > making a lot of assumptions before they even begin to write it. My point exactly. Like Lewis, they work from the assumption of god first, and then proceed to "explain" the universe from that standpoint. Reasons have been offered for why people believe in god ranging from "testimony of authority" to "need for absolute morality" to whatever, but they all at their base level have in common the fact that they were derived from an assumption of god first and analysis based on that assumption second. Given that, given both the un- reliability of the subjective-type evidence offered as "testimony" and "proof", and the after the fact analyses based on the assumptions in advance, why do people believe in god? One can fault those who simply do not ask such questions (about the nature of the "evidence" in favor of the existence of god) ONLY for failing to ask such questions. But what of those who have claimed (as many on the net have done) that they HAVE asked such questions and HAVE engaged in serious analysis of the issues involved? Have they discovered answers to these questions and solutions to the problems raised? If so, one must ask "Were THOSE solutions and answers ALSO generated through analysis that assumed in advance the existence of god?" -- "Pardon me for breathing which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bothered to mention it--Oh, God, I'm so depressed." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr