pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (09/05/85)
Beth, I am a little shocked at the degree of abusiveness towards my position that I find in your article. It was somewhat unexpected, considering the nature of your original article about maltheism, which seems to express (misplaced) concern rather than anger. My belief that God exists and is best described as being an evil pig monster is not the same sort of ``wishful thinking'' that is engaged in by others. By the God whorshipers, who wish for a loving father and thus allow God the Evil to ``assume'' that role Himself despite His lack of qualifications or desire to fulfill that role for real. Or by the atheists, who also assume that entropy is ``just another force of nature that we can't fully explain,'' even though its behavior is certainly that of a willful evil entity, deliberately destroying the hard work of man. You say ``Why bother to build systems of excuses for entropy?'' I am doing just the opposite. I am saying that there is no ``excuse'' for entropy, that its results are certainly the actions of an evil Damager-God. People seem to have forgotten why He is referred to as the Damager-God. Since He refers to Himself as ``Creator,'' when all He really does is damage, a title other than ``Creator'' is appropriate. You fall for the big lie, Beth, when you deny that the doings of Christianity since its inception (including the Inquistion and other evil things like it) are the will of God. They occured with His blessing, didn't they? They continued unimpeded by any intervention of ``good.'' What makes you think God and His son weren't deceiving you all along? The evidence is still in favor of this over and above believing the opposite. When you say ``Sarah was in her eighties,'' you forget how the Bible seems very flippant when it comes to keeping time. Adam is credited with living 930 years! By whatever scale that was really intended to be, ``in her eighties'' wouldn't seem extraordinary at all. You make the Bible sound like an issue of the ``Star'' or the ``World Weekly News,'' with headlines about women giving birth in old age. (Or parthenogenetically!) And, as a matter of fact, that's exactly the degree of reliability we can reasonably grant to it when it attributes good things to God. When you say (I paraphrase) ``if we cannot believe the good, then we cannot believe the evil either,'' you are missing the point, Beth. You're right when you say ``God might just be claiming responsibility for any old thing because he wants to impress us with His power.'' This is quite possibly true in some cases. But we know something heinous and horrific happened at the Dead Sea, the site of Sodom and Gomorrah. We know there was some sort of flood that virtually wiped out life on Earth. What was it that did all these things? Entropy? Or some heinous willful force? Another thing, Beth. You fail to distinguish the difference between the natural forces you describe. Rain is a natural event, necessary for life, useful for man in agricultural and other endeavors. Hurricanes are not. Birth is a natural event in the course of life. Death occurs as a result of decay, of entropy. Why are hurricanes and death and decay clearly different from normal natural forces? They are the products of an obvious willful force working AGAINST nature! The God whorshipers claim that it is these entropic things that are part of the natural flow, while the good is the deliberate doing of a loving God. I claim the opposite, because ``good'' is better described by natural flowing forces than the apparent whim of evil could be. (You have to work to build something good for yourself. Evil just happens by itself, destroying things AS IF IT HAD A WILL OF ITS OWN!) Which of us do you believe, and why? I find it sort of strange that you choose to name only ``evil'' examples of men's doings (Son of Sam, Hitler, and Jim Jones). There really is a fine human tendency to build things that a Damager-God seeks to eradicate, despite your casual dismissal of this. Look at the Tower of Babel for the earliest example. In doing this, you seem to have fallen for another of God's big lies: ``It is you who is evil, I am the ultimate good, anything I do is good!'' Man is surely not evil, and those men who do evil do it as the will of God, as His agents wreaking havoc over the Earth for His pleasure. Of course, He blames Satan for this, but recognize He and Satan are one and the same. When you speak of ``humans willfully interfering and damaging the natural flow of nature,'' you are speaking of humans who are followers of the will of God. It would seem rather self-centered of you to deny ``Murphy's Law,'' something most all of us have experienced. I say self-centered because you speak as if you were the only one God was out to damage. If it hasn't rained in some time even though you don't carry an umbrella, could someone else be suffering for it? Like farmers? Do you wonder why the sudden shortage of water all over the world? Is this a prelude to God's invitation to us all to join Him at Armageddon for His rapture of death? What's that closing line Rosen uses? ``Many things are possible, but few things actually happen?'' (My apologies, Rich, if I've gotten this wrong.) Beth, when you say ``a billion things could have just gone wrong,'' you are missing the point. God can choose whatever He likes to ``go wrong'' at any given time. Some small portion of it, a lot of it---perhaps to one particular person like Job), or all of it---which coincides with His ultimate ``prediction'' and plan for Armageddon. There are apparently (at least) three sets of assumptions you could make. You could say, Beth, that there simply is no God, that the imbalance between the ``good'' natural forces of nature and the ``evil'' destructive forces of entropy is ``just the way things are.'' (``It's easier to destroy things than to build them up.'') Or you can believe as the God whorshipers do, that the good forces, which seem best explained in terms of a mechanistic natural flow, are represented by the will of a loving God, while evil is represented either by an opposite force to God (Satan) or ``just the way things are.'' Or, finally, you can believe that the mechanistic natural flow of ``good'' really is ``the way things are,'' while the apparent whimsical interfering destructive forces of entropic evil are in fact the will of an evil Damager-God. Which do you choose? Your life may depend on the choice you make. Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (09/07/85)
Paul Zimmerman in recent article has been using the term entropy in presening his case against god. It is quite clear that Paul does not understand this term. The following are some example of his ludicrous claims: > Or by the atheists, who also assume > that entropy is ``just another force of nature that we can't fully > explain,'' even though its behavior is certainly that of a willful > evil entity, deliberately destroying the hard work of man. You say > ``Why bother to build systems of excuses for entropy?'' I am doing > just the opposite. I am saying that there is no ``excuse'' for entropy, > that its results are certainly the actions of an evil Damager-God. > > We know there > was some sort of flood that virtually wiped out life on Earth. What > was it that did all these things? Entropy? Or some heinous willful force? > > Death occurs as a > result of decay, of entropy. Why are hurricanes and death and decay clearly > different from normal natural forces? They are the products of an obvious > willful force working AGAINST nature! The God whorshipers claim that it is > these entropic things that are part of the natural flow, while the good > > that the > imbalance between the ``good'' natural forces of nature and the ``evil'' > destructive forces of entropy is ``just the way things are.'' (``It's > easier to destroy things than to build them up.'') Paul, I suggest that you do some studying in thermodynamics and in statistical thermodynamics, before using entropy as a buzzword for evil. If you don't know of any good book on this subject, I will be happy to recommand one in email. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (09/14/85)
[If God had wanted us to go around naked, we'd have been Born that way] [I've been working on a reply to this article (and understanding your position a little better, Paul), but they're gonna shut down our machine for a couple of days, so I'll just post this much and follow with the rest next week.] From: pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman), Message-ID: <322@pyuxn.UUCP>: > I am a little shocked at the degree of abusiveness towards my >position that I find in your article. It was somewhat unexpected, >considering the nature of your original article about maltheism, which >seems to express (misplaced) concern rather than anger. I apologize sincerely - I did not intend to be abusive, and I certainly feel no anger whatsoever towards you. On the contrary, I'm enjoying your articles a great deal. I appreciate your proposition of a totally different interpretation of both the bible and current real-world occurences - I enjoy the process of developing logical models of life, the universe and everything, and I'm glad to have a chance to work on one with you. But I do think your model needs work. I see some (what I consider to be) serious holes in it, and I guess I got a little over- zealous in pointing them out. I apologize, and if I do it again, please remember that I don't mean it personally at all. (BTW, I Was initially concerned for you, but you said you're doing ok so I'm taking your word for it). If anyone wants to skip the whole rest of the article, I think I can summarize my complaints pretty quickly. Your model rests on 3 assump- tions: 1) that a god exists; 2) that said god has enough power to affect nature (and people too, I think) according to its will; and 3) that all creative forces, and ONLY creative forces, are natural. I have two objections: 1) I oppose your claims that your model rests on NO assump- tions, i.e. that everything I just stated can be derived from observable evidence by logic alone; and 2) I think assumption 3 is just plain wrong - I believe that death is as natural as birth and that hurricanes are as natural as gentler rains. [The whole rest of the article will follow sometime next week (I hope).] Take care. -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) "What if the after-effect of the terrible bomb is unusual beyond belief? Wouldn't you rather the whole population had listened to somebody like the old Indian chief?" (The Roches)
pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (09/17/85)
Beth, Apology accepted. I got a bit worried that this was turning into the same sort of argument you were having with Rich Rosen a while ago, hence my reservations about your abusiveness. You did engage in the same brand of condescending ``concern'' that many Christians expressed, feeling that because I had reached a different conclusion than they, that I must be ``disturbed,'' or ``sick.'' My own fear about you is that what you call your overzealousness to point out ``holes'' in my model stem from your own rationalizing about the nature of God and/or the possibility of the existence of an evil Damager-God. You misstate the premises of my model. In fact, the premises you state DON'T ``rest on no assumptions,'' as you say, but alas they are not mine. I never spoke of a special status for ``creative forces.'' I did speak about building as being special hard work done by man in accordance with physical law. (If it were not in accordance with physical law, it wouldn't ``remain standing.'') Yet quite often a damaging force (physicists call it entropy in certain circumstances) appears that destroys the work accomplished by man. At whim, as if that force had a will of its own, in direct defiance of the natural flow of things. Certainly none of these are assumptions at all. The observable deliberate nature of that damaging force is the evidence I cite as proof of the existence of the Damager-God. I hope this clarifies things. Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (09/28/85)
[just a silly little :-)] From: pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman), Message-ID: <345@pyuxn.UUCP>: >You did engage in the same brand >of condescending ``concern'' that many Christians expressed, feeling that >because I had reached a different conclusion than they, that I must be >``disturbed,'' or ``sick.'' Actually, I didn't think you were "disturbed" or "sick". It just sounded like you were hurting. I didn't mean to be condescending, but I'd rather come across that way than to have ignored you in case you really were in pain. Anyway, you said you're ok, so I Am taking your word for it. >My own fear about you is that what you call >your overzealousness to point out ``holes'' in my model stem from your >own rationalizing about the nature of God and/or the possibility of the >existence of an evil Damager-God. Well, um, actually, I just like to argue. In fact, I posted a response to Dan Boscovich (sp?) that supported your view. But you seem(ed) to be more willing to re-evaluate/improve your position based on logical reasoning, so I guess I've spent more time arguing with you. Also, I've enjoyed coming to understand your reasoning - I think I actually understand why you think "the natural flow of things" is positive and negative things intrude into it. I don't agree that this is conclusive evidence for the existence of a damager-god (see below), but it's kind of neat to (I think) actually understand/feel something inspired by phosphorous characters glowing in my office. Now for the arguing (ahhhhhhhh! :-) : > You misstate the premises of my model. In fact, the premises you >state DON'T ``rest on no assumptions,'' as you say, but alas they are not >mine. I never spoke of a special status for ``creative forces.'' This is, I assume, in response to my claim that "all creative forces, and ONLY creative forces, are natural" is one of your fundamental assumptions. But in your initial posting you stated: > In fact, the claim that He created anything at all is a sham. >Heavenly bodies, life, mankind, all evolved out of the natural forces >of the universe. But what are the great things that God has taken >credit for since this creation? (N.B. ==== ========) In other words, the existence of heavenly bodies, life and mankind are attributable to a creative, but natural, force. In response to one of my postings you said: > Another thing, Beth. You fail to distinguish the difference between >the natural forces you describe. Rain is a natural event, necessary for >life, useful for man in agricultural and other endeavors. Hurricanes are >not. Birth is a natural event in the course of life. Death occurs as a >result of decay, of entropy. You *do* distinguish between birth, which is creative, and death, which is destructive; between steady but gentle rain on almost parched farms, which is creative, and hurricanes, which are destructive. I think you did indeed speak of a "special [i.e. 'natural'] status for ``creative forces.''" Furthermore, I think you *have* to state that. If you Don't call the creative forces natural, then they must be supernatural (i.e., under the control of some god). And if you Do allow destructive forces to be natural, then you can't attribute them to the damager-god. >Yet quite often a damaging force (physicists >call it entropy in certain circumstances) appears that destroys the work >accomplished by man. At whim, as if that force had a will of its own, in >direct defiance of the natural flow of things. Certainly none of these >are assumptions at all. The observable deliberate nature of that damaging [emphasis mine - BDC] ================= >force is the evidence I cite as proof of the existence of the Damager-God. >I hope this clarifies things. I'll grant that a damaging force is indeed observable in our little corner of space-time. But the "deliberate nature of that damaging force" is *not* observable. To the contrary, the force appears quite random. "At whim", yes; "as if that force had a will of its own", no. There's no pattern to it, no evidence of a plan. It's just random hits. Sometimes, *most* of the time, things go along pretty well. Sometimes they don't. So? Where's the deliberation? Where's the evidence of intelligent intent? Where's the planning? BTW, for the sake of this argument, you've already convinced me that the bible is a pack of lies, so I won't believe *any* of it - your evidence of intent, therefore, must come entirely from empirical observations. And I don't see it. I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify things a bit more (really - no sarcasm intended). [There's more, but again time doesn't permit. Hopefully later...] [P.S. I really am enjoying this, and I really am trying to listen to you, and to understand what your saying, and to make constructive criticisms. I'm just a bit of a zealot - please bear with me.] -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) "What if the after-effect of the terrible bomb is unusual beyond belief? Wouldn't you rather the whole population had listened to somebody like the old Indian chief?" (The Roches)
pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (10/17/85)
Beth, Remember two things (that you seem to have forgotten). When I distinguish between destructive forces of ``nature'' (anti-nature) and real natural flow forces, I pointed out a major distinction: that the destructive forces do NOT belong in that natural flow, that they seem to have a will of their own. Whose will if not God's? Also, just because God didn't create the entire universe (that is far beyond His power, to create Himself and the universe in which He resides), He still has the power to influence and corrupt the natural order of things. And He does so regularly. You say that such events are random, that they follow whim but not necessarily the will of a sentient entity, that no plan is being followed. I suggest you read the Bible to learn about God's plan of destruction. He cloaks it by claiming that it will be the work of Satan, but we know that Satan is just an alias He uses when engaging in evil. (P.S. I noticed your liking to argue. :-) Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez