jlp@faust.UUCP (09/05/85)
> >In fact, I do not believe in such a being, because a simple application of >skeptical thought to the issue makes it clear that such an extraordinary >claim as the existence of an omnipotent, sentient, universe-creating entity >requires extraordinary proof. But this was not touched upon in "Even If I >Did Believe", in which the question was explicitly left open. > I believe it is an incorrect conclusion to assume that proof is required. Perhaps for you proof is required. It is not the case that all people require the same proof. In the arena of supernatural perception, the parameters of the game extend beyond three-dimensional perceptions of reality. Consider also that the yardstick of the universe leaves our perception base in three dimensions woefully small. Consider this example: a skeptic cries out "supernatural being, I want to know if you are and who you are! why don't you come on down so I can get to know you". The being obliges, and presents itself in the time-space of the skeptic. Aaah, but this being has a physical span of some 300,000 miles, and consists of hydrogen particles. The skeptic, not having the tools for detection, concludes that the being does not exist, and therefore, there must be no omnipotent, sentient, etc. Is such a being conceivable? Can one conceive of an atom, with orbiting electrons, which, if magnified to the scale of the solar system, would map out into exactly such a size, or magnitude? Perhaps our solar system is merely a galactic atom, our galaxy a DNA for some grandiosely larger object or being. Proof of the extraordinary is only necessary when we are limited to ordinary perception. >I'd also like to add that the willingness of many posters to believe what >they want to believe regardless of evidence and experience is amazing. I am >referring not to Paul, but to such loony tunes as Arndt and Dyer. Wishful >thinking reigns, and these people seem to think it is some kind of virtue. I believe and suggest that it is unfair to label anyone, regardless of their stated positions or our perception of them. Who's crazy to A may be normal to B. Since there is no absolute with regard to sanity, how can we objectively evaluate any human? I perceive Mr. Arndt as a breath of fresh air, a delightful counterpoint to the somber melodies of normal net posting. Mr. Dyer has always deported himself with an even hand, and his postings, while representing a position, are sensitive to the opponents of that position. I thank him for that. Many of us have not experienced a cyclotron. Many of us have never seen the evidence of a meson or muon. Nevertheless, we are willing to believe that such particles exist, using as our framework of belief the testimony of those who have witnessed such partices' behavior. We place a level of trust in their findings and reputation, and we assume their beliefs "by faith", or believing it without seeing it. Is that so amazing? Jerryl Payne ...!ihnp4!inmet!faust!jlp
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (09/12/85)
Thank you to Jerryl Payne for an unusually polite message. I trust our disagreement will remain on this level. For any concrete belief, I require reliable evidence. You set up "supernatural perception" as the only valid tool for obtaining evidence of God's existence. Unfortunately, any reasonable amount of experimentation with this perception reveals problems with this approach. A Hindu will perceive the supernatural entities most favored by his local sect; a monotheist will perceive God; a Buddhist will perceive the Void. One is forced to the conclusion that all these have only symbolic truth, not literal truth, unless one is willing to play favorites (which is incompatible with the idea of gathering evidence.) I accept all these as worthwhile symbols of religious experience, but I do not go along with literal interpretations of any of them. "Supernatural perception" is not a cyclotron or an electrometer. It is a distorting mirror. The existence of mesons has been established using instruments which allow replication; the existence of God has not. The instrument used to "demonstrate" God's existence gives different results depending on the preconceptions of the operator. I feel that it is unethical to label people. However, someone who freely indulges in unfair labelling themselves waives the protection of this ethical rule. Both Arndt and Dyer have indulged in extremely hostile and nasty personal attacks on me without provocation; therefore, I feel no hesitation in labelling them "loony tunes" where I would simple say "their positions are inconsistent and poorly thought out" about a polite poster who believed as they do. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"