Subj: Re: Pakistan
Date: 05/29/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-05-29 21:30:06 EDT, Alberto Monteiro writes:
<< Pakistan is an islamic country, and it's important to show the islamic
world that there is now an "Islamic Bomb", equal to the "Catholic Bomb",
the "Capitalist Bomb", the "Hindu Bomb" and the "Jewish Bomb". >>
Lemme guess: that's Pakistan, France, United States, India, and Israel?
You're forgetting the Communist Bomb and the Asian Bomb (USSR and China and
maybe even Japan).
<<Some of us "adolescents" were wise enough to put an end to our nuclear
programs: Argelia, Argentina and Brazil. And what did we get? Just some
silly lines mentioning us as "good kids"
In 1998 I'll vote for anyone who promises the Latino American Bomb! >>
This illustrates my point. As it stands, there's more reason for non-first
world countries to develop nukes than there is to keep to the
non-proliferation treaty, if only to assert that some nations aren't
"adolescents". If we as a species don't do something about it soon, we're in
big trouble.
Subj: Some questions about complexity theory
Date: 06/09/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One thing that bothers me about complexity theory is the postulate that the
universe moves towards a state of more information.
Doesn't this violate the laws of thermodynamics, where the universe is
supposed to move towards a state of increasing entropy?
Or is my definition of entropy not related to sentient manipulation of the
environment to produce higher and higher levels of order?
Seems to me that we're driving the cosmos towards dissolution by creating as
much order as we are, especially with the advent of computers which increase
our power to create order exponentially.
Perhaps someone better informed than I can resolve this apparent conflict.
Subj: Entropy and Mimedynamics :)
Date: 06/12/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-11 19:22:17 EDT, Dana Gourley writes:
<< I think this is missing the point that entropy is not a conserved
property. Entropy is an extensive property of a system. Talking about an
"Entropy sink" is flawed, because Entropy can't move, not even in the
sense that Energy can. >>
Yes, my engineering Thermodynamics book states that entropy is an extensive
property (like mass, volume, and Energy) and that there is no conservation of
entropy principle. Given this, however, there is the possibility of "entropy
sinks" because it is possible to reduce the entropy in a system if the
surroundings have a correspondingly greater increase in entropy. A common
example of this is a hot substance in a rigid tank that is allowed to cool to
an ambient temperature. This implies that while the entropy of the substance
in the tank has decreased, there is an increase in the entropy of the
surroundings which is equal or greater than the decrease in the closed system
of the rigid tank and its contents. The surroundings are therefore a kind of
"entropy sink" -- not because entropy has been "moved" anymore than volume
can be moved but because entropy has been displaced from one system to
another, as volume of a system can be displaced to volume of another system.
I would claim that Earth's Sun acts as it's immediate surroundings and thus
is its "entropy sink".
The third law of thermodynamics gives us the reference point for our
definition of entropy. That is, a pure crystalline substance at absolute
zero temperature is defined to have zero entropy. In light of this law, how
de we view a strand of DNA thermodynamically? Obviously, it has *some*
entropy because it is not crystalline nor is it often found at absolute zero
temperatures. However, it is also a molecule with a great amount of order
placed into it. Is there no thermodynamic distinction between DNA and, say,
another complex carbon molecule like those found in petroleum?
Similarly, a computer is a collection of millions of on and off switches. To
run a program, there must be an imposed order on those switches for the
program to function. Thermodynamically, it probably makes no difference if
those switches are in purely random state or whether they are systematically
running a program.
So can we say that on the order of complexity theory that one state of a
large system is mimedynamically greater in entropy than another state of the
same large system? Mimedynamics is a term that I just made up on the fly to
describe such a change of order in a system. Thermodynamic entropy seems to
be a purely physical property but the entropy of a large system can depend on
the outside perspective who might see order in something that microscopically
seems purely random. Thus the concept of entropy and order becomes a type of
meme, or is metaphysical rather than physical. Hence there can be such a
thing as mimedynamic entropy.
Does this seem like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo or is there a grain of truth that
I'm getting at?
Any and all comments welcome.
Subj: Re: Entropy and DNA
Date: 06/12/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-12 22:12:21 EDT, Nick Arnett writes:
<< At a high level, the notions of entropy and self-organization collide. The
presumed end result of entropy (when last I took physics, so correct me if
I'm out of date!) is a universe made of a consistent inert material. >>
Or an ultimate collapse of the universe into a singularity with zero entropy!
But this theory isn't in vogue these days as the universe is deemed to be
expanding and not contracting.
I do agree that entropy and self-organization are related in some way. Just
how is what I'm trying to conceive :)
<<But
complexity theory suggests that life is more likely than not, given the
rules of this universe. If the latter is true, then it becomes difficult to
accept the former, unless you postulate that life is doomed in its battle
against entropy.>>
I don't think that the two concepts are irreconcilable. There are pockets of
order within a degenerating universe as shown by the Earth. Given the supply
of high-quality energy from the sun the Earth is made fertile for
self-organizing principles to assert themselves. When that supply of
high-quality energy is gone, then Earth will be exposed to the ravages of
entropy, but we have several billion years of time to organize ourselves
before this happens :)
Subj: Re: Entropy and DNA
Date: 06/16/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-16 17:24:03 EDT, Darryl Shannon writes:
<< It is inevitable
that you get a hand, but each hand is exactly as unlikely, no matter
what hand beats what. Therefore, the royal flush is not more ordered
than the "random" hand.
The parallel with DNA is obvious. >>
Yes, but I also was careful to say that "DNA, in its proper context" is more
ordered than a random string. Context implies a recipient of the coded
information with the ability to distinguish information from garbage. Thus,
information content of a royal flush is meaningless without someone to
realize that it is a royal flush. There is a meme among all poker players
that a hand with cards of the same suit constitutes a royal flush. Hence I
suggested that perhaps information content is a subjective thing depending
upon a perceiver. Similarly, without the surrounding cell and system which
"perceives" (I hate to use a word that implies cognitive ability but I can't
find another word) the DNA as something that has information content, that
DNA is meaningless and might as well be a random string of the four
components.
Subj: Re: googoogoojoob
Date: 06/18/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-18 10:51:10 EDT, you write:
<< you probably remind me of a epal of mine, who happens to be 1/2 Chinese
and 1/2 German/Russian-American. >>
Well, my mother's grandmother was Chinese and both my parents have Spanish
blood. Dunno where the German/Russian features come in though :) perhaps
it's because I like Hesse and Tolstoy? Maybe not, because I really like
Camus much better . . .
<<>Only the cute ones :)
:P How do you know I'm cute? >>
Your writing style is cute!
<<Yer not that ugly!
So, tell me, how come you're unattached romantically then? :) >>
Ugly is as ugly does, or so they say :) I'm unattached because my wife left
me 6 months ago, taking my young son to Alaska to live with her sister. I'm
now living alone in the house we once shared and I'm lonely. It's really
hard to meet intellectually gifted women in America, and I'm not the
night-clubbing person with the energy to meet "normal" women. You're correct
that I'm like Hannibal in that I'm essentially a loner who likes to keep to
himself. I find it hard to relate to other people in person so I'm not that
sociable. Besides, most of my friends are in Chicago where I grew up and
we've drifted apart.
So tell me, how come you're in an LDR?
Subj: Re: What languages did Jesus speak?
Date: 06/27/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-27 15:43:24 EDT, Julia writes:
<< The book in question is directed at 5-9-year-olds. But hey, it had an
answer and wasn't difficult to type in! >>
No prob! My maturity level and attention span is about that of a 6 year old
anyway (though it would take a motherly figure to notice this . . .)
Thanks for all the answers folks! I didn't know Aramic was the
language of the region. I would expect though, that although Greek was
common among those who were literate that Jesus mostly spoke Aramic being the
carpenter's son that he was. Does anybody know if Jesus actually wrote
anything down that survives today? You'd think a literate person who
preaches would write things down and that a man with many devoted followers
would save such writings . . .
Subj: Re: Faith and reason, was A-theism
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-27 20:54:45 EDT, Keith writes:
<< Would you please tell me how -lacking- a property is somehow in the same
category as having it? >>
Actually, some would argue that it is a leap of faith to absolutely rule out
a Creator since we have no proof for or against.
If you don't take either leap of faith you're agnostic.
Subj: Re: Faith and reason, was A-theism
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 03:17:29 EDT, Doug writes:
<< Because lots
of people have faith that god does exist?
Atheism isn't faith, it's skepticism. >>
Well, no. Belief in a Creator requires faith of course. Belief that there
was no such thing as creation and a Creator also requires faith. If you can
prove that the Universe wasn't created then I'll believe that atheism is
skepticism. Until then, I will remain skeptic about your assertion that the
Universe wasn't created.
Subj: Re: The Apple Scenario
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 12:38:27 EDT, Keith writes:
<< If you retcon the "omniscient" god into the story, yes. The god (one of
many, is implied, actually) portrayed seems a little incompetant to be
omniscient. >>
No, one does not have to be omniscient to do the equation (x*infinity)>=1,
where x is the probability over a given time period that an event would
happen. Even I can do that equation!
<<No, but there are other flaws. The biggest flaw, which works even if the
story is taken allegorically, as most Christians and Jews do, is that Adam
and Eve were told not to eat of the fruit (the Hebrew doesn't say apple),
no? But, without knowledge of good and evil, they couldn't have known that
disobeying god (or obeying the serpent) was wrong! >>
No, you make a common translational error. The fruit was from the Tree of
Knowledge of Good *from* Evil. Thus Adam and Eve knew it was good to obey
God and not good to disobey. Eating the fruit enabled them to consciously
form and act upon evil thoughts.
Subj: Re: Faith and reason, was A-theism
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 12:46:57 EDT, Keith writes:
<< > Well, no. Belief in a Creator requires faith of course. Belief that
there
> was no such thing as creation and a Creator also requires faith. If you
can
But lack of belief in gods, which is the definiton of atheism doesn't.
>>
Sorry Keith, the standard definition is as follows:
athe*ism (noun)
[Middle French atheisme, from athee atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from
a- + theos god]
First appeared 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Thus Atheism is a disbelief not a lack of belief. Here is the def for
agnosticism:
ag*nos*tic [1] (noun)
[Greek agnostos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnostos known, from
gignoskein to know -- more at KNOW]
First appeared 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown
and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in
either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
-- ag*nos*ti*cism (noun)
Don't try to argue definitions because one can easily look up definitions :)
<<As for this, there are actually various reasons to suppose that the
universe is uncreated >>
And there are reasons to suppose that the universe *was* created -- sure,
many of them are of an emotional or spiritual nature but emotion and spirit
should not be discounted simply because they are physically undefinable (and
maybe they will be definable in the future). Emotion and spirit definitely
have societal effects which would alter our model of Man's evolution and thus
must be taken into account scientifically.
At this point, we can neither say that there was a Creator and a creation nor
can we say that there wasn't unless we take a leap of faith.
Subj: Re: Faith and reason, was A-theism
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 13:59:24 EDT, Doug writes:
<< But does that which creates - that person or *force* - have to have done
so willfully? Was the Grand Canyon created or did it just happen? If
it was created by the forces of nature, was its creation planned or
arbitrary? >>
I think we can safely say that creation implies a cognitive ability on the
part of a Creator. Someone mentioned that parents create a child, and though
they might not have planned it happening, they at least understood that the
child was a consequence of their sexual act. Otherwise, if the Creator is
merely a force of nature then we can just as easily say that the universe
came to being in and of itself.
Subj: Re: The Apple Scenario
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 14:09:17 EDT, Ticia writes:
<< No such thing as "innocent children"-- sins of the father... >>
Well, they were innocent to the extent that they were admitted into Heaven
when they were slaughtered.
I think Jesus was sent to Earth to intercede on behalf of humanity
particularly for the reason that the Old Testament God was kind of brutal and
unfeeling . . .
And we Christians can always resort to the explanation that we humans simply
cannot fathom the reasons and purposes of our God, and that we must take it
upon faith that He loves us and wants the best for us. Thus God is
uncompromising (I am that I am) where we must ultimately compromise ourselves
towards God. In other words, there is no bargaining with God and that He
plays by different rules than we do.
While I find this hard to accept and therefore I should not call myself a
Christian, I still try to live a decent Christian lifestyle -- that is,
church on Easter and Christmas, fidelity towards one's spouse, responsibility
towards one's children, faith and goodwill towards my neighbors, etc.
As an American and as a fan of David Brin, I tend to believe that all
potentially sentient beings are created equal and it is hard for me to accept
the fundamental heirarchy of God over Man. But I find in different cultures
where heirarchy in society is common that many people find it easy to accept
God as the highest level of being and can follow the rule of not bargaining
with Him.
I expect it is much the same for non-theists on this list and to a much
greater extent. All I know is that Albert Einstein and Mohandas Ghandi
believed in God and if that was good enough for them then it probably is good
enough for me :)
Subj: Re: Faith and reason, was A-theism
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 15:22:37 EDT, Keith writes:
<< False dicotomy. It could just BE. >>
In what way is it false? You have a tendency not to explain yourself fully.
If the universe could just "be" then that implies that there was no creation.
Otherwise, the universe was created. There seems to be no false dichotomy
here . . .
Maybe if you explained what you meant further. I think Gord's reasoning is
perfectly acceptable.
Subj: Re: The Apple Scenario
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 15:25:34 EDT, Ticia writes:
<< Uhm, wouldn't that also include going to church every Sunday, praying every
day, reading your bible, and, euhm, NOT doing what you describe in your
Celibacy post? ;)) >>
Of course! That's why I said I wasn't a *real* Christian and that I only
live a decent Christian lifestyle. A real Christian would attend church
*every* Sunday because you cannot be a Christian without your community of
Christians and it is not acceptable to worship alone.
Subj: Re: The Apple Scenario
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 15:25:34 EDT, Ticia writes:
<< Ok, I need examples here of famous highly intelligent and good atheists!
Anyone? :) >>
Dr. Strangelove? Oppenheimer? Hawkings? Dunno. Seems that a good moral
background implies a belief in Purpose (I'm opening this can for further
argument :)
Subj: Re: The Apple Scenario
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 15:44:41 EDT, Keith writes:
<< If x is zero, then the inequation (even taking infinity as a limit) is
wrong. >>
But x is *not* zero since Adam and Eve are given the choice of eating or not
eating. If x=0, then God didn't allow for free will and the point is moot.
Circularly, x cannot be zero since Adam and Eve did taste the fruit, which is
not possible if x=0.
<<Is disobeying god wrong?
Is doing wrong doing evil?>>
Doing wrong is not necessarily doing evil. Wrong implies a set of rules.
Evil implies a sense of morality and wilful disdain of that morality. Thus,
I can know right from wrong in a mathematical sense but making a mistake in
addition/subtraction has no moral implications and cannot be evil. Milton in
Paradise Lost makes these distinctions and asserts that Adam and Eve knew
only good before eating the fruit. Likewise, those angels not fallen are
still in this state of grace of only knowing good and not good from evil.
This reminds me. Is being politically correct not also making a moral choice
of following good and not evil, the morality being determined by liberal
philosophy?
Subj: Re: Faith and reason, was A-theism
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 15:51:14 EDT, Keith writes:
<< > : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is
unknown
> and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in
One should note that the two parts of that definition above are NOT
equivalent. >>
Sure, but that definition belongs to "agnostic" and not "atheist". Read my
post more carefully. Since agnostics are not "committed to believing" or not
believing then it is logical to assume that theists and atheists are both
committed into belief or disbelief.
<< The reasons I gave were consequences of the meaning of "create" and some
discoveries of modern science. Appeal to "feeling" doesn't cut it.
<snip>
I provided good evidence to suppose there isn't; in any case the burden of
proof (should be burden of evidence, actually) is on the theist. >>
No, you provided some reasons to suggest that the Universe was not created.
Hearsay doesn't cut it either, and my suppositions are of the same level as
yours. Bring in some hard science and logic and you may change my mind.
Subj: Re: The Apple Scenario
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 15:56:54 EDT, Keith writes:
<< If you claim we don't understand goodness, then you
are just saying that god isn't good in our sense >>
God is good but He is also seems evil. God is incomprehensible. I see no
contradictions in those statements. Care to point one out?
Subj: Re: The Apple Scenario
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 15:56:54 EDT, Keith writes:
<< > greater extent. All I know is that Albert Einstein and Mohandas Ghandi
> believed in God and if that was good enough for them then it probably is
good
Not exactly in the case of Einstein. Einstein was religious, yes, but to
call him a theist is a stretch. (Again see the alt.atheism FAQ) >>
Oh, now we're arguing just as to which side Einstein belongs! "God is the
sum of all physical laws" implies a belief in some sort of God. "God does
not play dice with the Universe" implies a cognitive God. Einstein was one
of us!
:)
Subj: Re: What languages, Faith/Reason, the apple scenario
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 16:59:48 EDT, Tim Rosenberger writes:
<< I guess it depends on what you consider to be benevolent. If you consider
benevolence to be keeping someone isolated and insolated from all dangers
and stiffling them with guards and wards and locked doors so that they have
no danger of harming themselves, but also lack all possibility of
exercising volition or choice in a meaningful way, then the God of Genesis
3 is not omnibenevolent. >>
Reminds me of Orson Scott Card's "Hot Sleep" or "Worthington Chronicles"
doesn't it?
My answer would lie much along the same line of reasoning as yours. That God
doesn't want the adulation of automatons but fully sentient beings with free
will to choose to love Him uncompromisingly. Thus it is *necessary* for Adam
and Eve to know good from evil.
Subj: Re: A-theism
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 17:13:56 EDT, Darryl writes:
<< OK. I said I don't believe in god. And then people started accusing
me of being unscientific, because it takes just as much faith to not
believe in god as to believe in god. >>
No, no one is saying that you're unscientific. I only pointed out that the
reasons given for probability that God doesn't exist are on the same level as
the reasons that He does exist. As for invisible unicorns -- sure, there is
no real argument for or against their existence other than the fact that
their existence fills no spiritual or emotional need in us. As I said in the
Tolkien newsgroup, God exists as much as Gandalf or elves exist.
<< God is the unique infinite personal Spirit who has created out of
nothing everything other than himself; he is eternal and uncreated;
omnipotent and omniscient; and his attitude towards his human
creatures, whom he has made for eventual fellowship with himself, is
one of grace and love. >>
Ok, I'll accept this concept of God, at least in regards to First Cause. We
cannot know that He loves us other than supposing that He created us in His
own image and that we are capable of loving our children so it may follow
that He loves His own children. This assumes, of course, that God exists and
created everything as an act of will. I hold that it takes faith to believe
the assertion or disbelieve the assertion.
<< If you believe in uncaused first causes, I think you are stretching when
you
define that as god. >>
No, I think the issue is whether or not the Creator exists as a cognitive
force. The universe might possibly have an uncaused First Cause but that
does not necessarily imply that the First Cause cares about its creation and
so it matters not whether the universe just *is* or is caused by an uncaused
First Cause. Spiritually I am more comfortable with the idea of a Purpose
behind creation and that is just as good a reason to believe as to assert
that I'm comfortable in an existential reality and therefore God cannot
possibly exist.
<< If you think I have faith that the universe exists, you're right. But
that is not the same as saying I have faith that god doesn't exist. >>
No it's not the same thing. Given that you believe the universe exists, you
do have to have some faith that God doesn't exist though because you don't
know whether or not the universe was created with some Purpose. God is
unprovable -- "I am that I am", He said. The dichotomy is, either the
universe was created or it was not. You can believe either scenario or you
can simply state that you don't know. Belief requires a leap of faith, and
saying that you don't know absolves you of that leap. So, if you really are
a skeptic, then you will say that you're an agnostic because you are
unwilling to take anything on faith.
Subj: Re: The Apple Scenario
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 21:05:34 EDT, Keith writes:
<< We understand goodness.
God is incomprensible.
Something which is completely incomprehensible has no properties we
understand.
Goodness is a property.
Therefore god is not good (= does not posess the property of goodness) >>
"God is incomprehensible" does not imply that "God is completely
incomprehensible". Therefore, we understand some properties that God has and
one of them is that God is sometimes good. There's still no inconsistency
here. Try again :)
Subj: Re: The Apple Scenario
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 21:12:14 EDT, Albert Einstein wrote:
<< You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds
without a religious feeling of his own. >>
In light of this statement, we cannot say that Einstein was an atheist, now
can we? Or if we can then we cannot say that atheists have no religious
feelings (leaps of faith). Einstein also says that:
<< His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the
harmony
of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that,
compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings
is an utterly insignificant reflection...>>
So Einstein is positing that natural law has cognitive abilities that can be
characterized by the word "intelligence". He also implies that this God is
incomprehensible by human beings. This is radically different from the
atheists who would say that There Is No God.
Einstein is still one of us!
Subj: Re: Faith and reason, was A-theism
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 21:22:31 EDT, Keith writes:
<< Ok, fine, but I've done it repeatedly. An atheist, for the last time, is
someone who lacks belief in gods. >>
A Douglas Atheist, maybe. I've already shown that by common definition an
atheist is one who claims that gods do not exist.
<<Because, as in many fields, the dictionary definition is inadequate.>>
I am always distrustful of those who would throw away common definitions as
being inadequate in favor of specialized definitions. What I call a
"murderer" could just as easily be called by something like "an agent of
ethnic cleansing" by a man who carefully and field-specifically defined his
terms in order to conceal the fact that he is killing people. Similarly,
defining an atheist as merely a skeptic hides all indication that an atheist
has taken a leap of faith. Do we really know that there aren't higher beings
out there somewhere who might have been responsible for our Uplift?
Subj: Re: Faith and reason, was A-theism
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 21:22:31 EDT, Keith writes:
<< > Actually, you have listed potential candidates for a non-created
universe.
> But you have not presented the evidence that shows that these are actually
> any more probably than a universe created and guided by sentient will.
See my post on qunatum mechanics and general relativit.y >>
Your post says nothing about proof that God does not exist, but only mentions
that we can't know what lies outside the boundaries of time and space as it
was defined at the point of Creation. What we can't know does not equate to
we know that God does not exist.
<< Not at all. I make no positive claim. Someone who is a theist should have
evidence to support her viewpoint, and to date none of it has been
satisfactory.>>
You make the claim that gods do not exist. We make the claim that God
exists. We have already agreed that neither is provable or disprovable.
Therefore, there is no burden of proof in either case. Each view can easily
co-exist since they're purely based on faith. We theists don't get irritated
by unbelievers because we know faith when we see it. Atheists are somehow
bothered by the fact that intelligent people like Einstein and Ghandi believe
in God -- to the extent that they try to prove that Einstein and others
actually *didn't* believe in God! And agnostics wouldn't have the courage to
take either point of view. Quite an amusing situation if you ask me . . .
Subj: Re: Faith and reason, was A-theism
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 21:33:58 EDT, Keith writes:
<< So we have:
atheistic areligious agnostic |
atheistic areligious gnostic | I am one of these, depending on which god
is under discussion.
atheistic religious agnostic
atheistic religious gnostic
theistic areligious agnostic | something like Homer Simpson
theistic areligious gnostic
theistic religious agnostic
theistic religious gnostic
As you can see, this allows many posiitons.
>>
And we have the Peoples Front of Judea, the United Peoples Front of Judea,
the Judean United Peoples Front, ad infinitum.
An atheist makes a leap of faith. A true skeptic does not. A pedant gets
lost in meaningless tangents -- a wise man keeps things as clear as possible
and often says "Keep it Simple, Stupid!".
Subj: Re: The Apple Scenario
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 18:55:19 EDT, Tim Rosenberger writes:
<< Third, we have assumed that the prohibition
against eating of the fruit is an eternal law, and not a contingent one,
similar to a parent's rule that a child not run out onto the street. >>
I'll accept the first two points but for this point, I believe that God told
them not to eat of the Fruit and never mentioned that they might, in time,
partake. Further, the scenario seems a simple one with simple rules and so
my model was a simple one. Similarly, the motions of the planets around the
Sun can be approximated by a simple model. In any case, we should assume
that Adam and Eve were put there for eternity and that the temptation to eat
would *grow* and not decrease because human beings are human beings and
curiosity grows over time and does not diminish.
<< I just couldn't let these modelling assumptions we've been using
slide by without comment.>>
Any comments are welcome!
