From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Believers: What Would Make You Not Believe In GOD?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:12:00 GMT

In article <GYg=RK+@engin.umich.edu>, 
ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes...

>In article <11JAN199314080004@utarlg.uta.edu> 
>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:

>>>that they are a lot more certain than that about 'God's' existence. Could
>>>you 'choose' not to believe that you yourself exist? Could you 'choose'
>>>not to believe that 2+2=4?
>>
>>Sorry, chose, choose, lose, loose -- give me trouble. I'd change English
>>if I could figure out how. :)
> 
> Um, actually, I was expressing doubt over the concept of 'choosing'
>a well-supported belief, not doing a spelling flame. Honest.

Oops, sorry. It is hard to doubt one's precense. 

>>In the long run, my self is least likely to exist. As to 2+2=4, that 
>>depends on the type arithmetic being used. Other geometries condidered. 
> 
> Okay, if you have two $50 bills and I have two $50 bills, and we lay our
>money out on a table, I don't think I could choose to believe that there
>be $250, even though we'd show a profit if it were true. The idea that
>there would be $200 has too much evidence behind it.

It does go the other way (net loss) easier. It is just paper (in the 
case considered). Basically valueless, except for the credence we 
place in it. {I hope Ray, that you understand that this is a very
accurate response on my part.}

> Also, I can't choose to believe that there are the patented Invisible
>Pink Unicorns Prancing in My Walls (tm), even though I see them mentioned
>so often on alt.atheism.

Yet, others use them as counter examples I take it. There seems to be
a plane of interaction among people that has little to do with the 
physical. Yet some are motivated to respond physically by such. In my
estimation the physical is much less rewarding to deal in than the
motivational.

> Similarly, I just can't choose to believe in a God that seems completely
>self-contradictory to me, especially when there is no compelling
>evidence in It's favor.

God as a physical entity you mean??? { This *is* a question. }

>>>[Atheist say, "show x, y, or z & I'll believe"]
>>
>>Which is like saying, Skeptics doubt till shown a plausible system??
> 
> Oh, sort of. I don't have a clue how NASA managed to aim the Voyager
>crafts so well, but they by-golly did it, and I'll take that as
>evidence that there exists a means of doing it.

Based on what you've read in the paper, in journals, or seen on TV??
Based on some tangible involvement with the data relay equipment?

If the former, then you trust other people. If the latter, then you
trust your own talents. There are other possibilities about "the
evidence," perhaps. Have I missed what you meant?

>>> Well, if someone walked up to me, put their hand on my forehead, and
>>>cried, "In the name of __________ you now have 20/20 vision without
>>>glasses!" and had it come true, I would be inclined to pay them some
>>>attention, at least about whatever they used to fill in the _________.
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>Heck of a way to break the ice, I reckon. They'd probably get my 
>>attention to. That's hardly sufficient reason to even suspect _________
>>is GOD or the Messiah, or some agent come at their bidding.
> 
> Sufficient reason, no. But most theisms make very startling claims.
>Should I not request commensurate evidence? It would at least favorably
>dispose me towards what they had to say.

When looking for "evidence," the "precense" or separately the "spirit"
being conveyed is missed -- in my experience. This is not necessarily a 
theistic concern. If you want a favorable disposition regarding any
subsequent conversation with "them," I'm surprised you'd make that 
dependent on evidence, which would be like meeting, before shaking hands.
Then again, that seems to be the case given, unless touching one's
head is considered a greeting. 

It might be easier just to shout out a hello of welcome on both sides.

>>>>I'd have to trust my mind or my self for some x, y and z to be 
>>>>sufficient. And I don't trust my self or anything but trivial matters.
>>                                        ^^-- "on" 
>>> Well, I guess some of us have different estimations of our own
>>>abilities. Even then, I don't see where I have any choice but to
>>>make do with whatever abilities I have.
>>
>>Choice to me seems to be different than ability or mind. For instance
>>one can simply choose to be. In the instant, such a choice is experienced.
> 
> Well, what else am I supposed to do? Make do with the abilities someone
>else has?

Simply being is ok, too. Workaholics generally have a hangup with doing,
I think. 

>>"Making do with only one's own abilities" makes it kinda hard for
>>others to care for you, yes??
> 
> Why?

As in not worrying, it's also helpful just to let go sometimes and be
served or cared for. All good options, besides just and only "making
do with one's own abilities." So another choice to "making do with your 
own abilities" is to just not worry about it. You can see this, I think.

It doesn't worry me that I don't trust myself on major things. That's
what experts are for. Perhaps then "one who makes do with their own 
abilities" becomes the expert. Seems right, for both the served and
the server. Of course, there is no one more expert than you on you,
(unless you're a believer).

>>>>>Theists say, "It is impossible to conceive that God does not exist.  
>>>>
>>>>It's easy -- get drunk. Go to sleep. Have a stroke. etc.
>>>>Merely a mental thing.
>>> 
>>> Ah, but what would make you think that this conception was *true*,
>>>if anything?
>>
>>Not "what," rather "who."  I've related my own experience. The stroke
>>was minor, but enough to allow me to realize that I could easily lose
>>my mind. Make that "loose." Or vice versa. No big deal. We do so every day.
> 
> I don't think I follow you here...

We do so by going to sleep (loose our minds that is). We are prone to do
so by accidents, infirmity or age. No big deal, nothing to worry about.

>>>>Everything human falls apart, since it's part of nature (*).
>>>>
>>>>(* -- Isn't that the second law of thermodynamics or something?)
>>> 
>>> Get a good book on Thermodynamics. The 2nd law of thermo is perhaps
>>>the most misunderstood scientific concept ever.
>>
>>My personal library includes:
>>
>>	_Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics_ (3rd ed.)
>>	by Wylen and Sonntag (c) '86  and
>>	
>>	_The Second Law_
>>	Henry A. Bent (c) '65
>>
>>I like the picture facing the title page of the second book,
>>which shows a little guy running up a hill with a round boulder
>>bounding upward after him.  That other hill must've been bigger.
>	
> Hmmm. Then you know the 2nd law is a very limited statement, that cannot
>really be rigorously applied outside the area of thermodynamics.

I'll agree. But having a linguistic bent, I'm intrigued by doing so
poetically.

> Human things fall apart because they are not made (so far) with extensive
>self-repair capability. Even if we built something like that, it would
>eventually run out of available energy, but that's the only sense that
>the 2nd law comes in to play. It's very misleading to talk about applying
>the 2nd law to human manufacturing in the broad sense I think you mean it.

As to maintaining things which fall apart, I will claim to be an expert.
No matter how much self-repair is put in, there is no evidence that the
complexity resulting can be overcome. We border on an information 
theoretic problem here, a stickyness in which entropy means two different
things concretely. The problem with the additional complexity has to
do with increased lengths of noisy information channels. 

{ I do *not* intend to establish my expertise, and so will defer to whatever
you wish to conclude on this. }

>>>>The easiest way to be a believer is just do it like a kid.
>>>>Unbelief for a child is harder, but still just a matter of doubting.
> 
>>> Little kids also believe in Santa Claus if they're told to.
> 
>>Which influences their actions greatly. In some sense, (without 
>>reflecting on GOD), their belief influences their actions.
>>
>>Purely a mental thing. Been hard to prove. Or is that proove?
> 
> My point was that it is easy to believe in false things if one beleives
>as a kid does. Adults may believe in false things, but the errors are
>at least less blatant. (Usually.)

Yet even erroneous beliefs move people to act, as even science proves every
day. So you might as well believe, and go for it, even if you're wrong
in your belief. Those who disbelieve -- pose a problem not even GOD 
will solve -- I think. Basically a disbeliever gets stuck in a rut of
their own making. We could have talked in similar fashion about 
planners.

>>>>And even Judas repented (Matthew 27:3). So maybe even Hitler did before
>>>>he blew his brains out. (Or however he commited suicide, if you can
>>>>believe the historical propaganda.) And maybe despite his twisted brain, 
>>>>Jeffrey Dahmer believes as well. Imagine that, Dahmer and Hitler saved, 
>>>>while all the disbelievers damn themselves. 
>>> 
>>> I don't see any reasonable option but not to believe. I am quite honest
>>>about this, though many theists insist that I must be mistaken about my
>>>own thoughts. 
>> ^^^--- Imagine that too.
> 
> I don't think I follow you here either.

Alchemy led to chemistry which leads to something more "valid."

The process was akin to science, and moves to something beyond science.

Lead to gold.

>>>If God chooses to damn me because of that, then so be it.
>>>I wouldn't want to hang out with someone like that, frankly.
>>
>>Ok. Fair warning. I think this will considered "preachy."
>>
>>My belief is that GOD loves everyone, each and individually,
>>and that the only way anyone can be damned, is to turn away
>>from GOD, which they do themself. I think some people do that
>>so committedly that, they never would even try to reach out
>>to GOD, ever again -- "true" damnation. Even when GOD tries
>>to get their attention. 
>>
>>To me that would either be like; Placing my own judgement above all
>>else. Or never being willing to risk anything. Or simply not caring
>>enough to try. 
>>
>>End of "preachy." Though I don't me it to be. It's how I see it.
> 
> Well, yeah, it was 'preachy.' But it does exprss your belief. If
>it's true, I honestly beleive that I have not 'turned away' from
>God. As I say below, I don't think that there is anything to turn
>from.

Do you also not think GOD is some one? A precense for instance.
And do you not think GOD is a spirit?? Which can include intelligence.

>>>>Your choice. Just simply turn away from GOD if you don't want to 
>>>>believe. It's even easier to turn back.
>>> 
>>> I don't think there's anything to turn away *from*, don't you see?
>>
>>What I see is that beyond this screen, and all the intervening distance,
>>on the other side of the words, and the energy impulses, and the light,
>>not only in the machines and systems in between, but also those things
>>in my brain... you are there Ray. And I here. I hope.
>>
>>When I turn off the computer, I'll still believe in you. To me all of 
>>"it" is merely that which separates us. We share it, nature and flesh. 
>>But we, you and I, (I and Thou), are present as are so many others, in 
>>a continuum of "It." And One totally present, not us. Even losing one's
>>mind, or body, or will, can't change that -- we are. 
> 
> You can believe this... but I don't see any reason to. Can you give
>me a reason to?

Perhaps. An awareness of precense is cultivated by shorting out the 
mind in a zen sense. There are easier ways, such as injury or drugs,
but perhaps we could more simply liken it to the mental state of an 
infant or animal. "Mind" seems to be an excellent instrument for
abstracting, and can be used to encourage or discourage, much as 
emotion does in emergent situations. When "mind" discourages from
reaching out in a seemingly unreasonable fashion -- that doesn't
mean that what might be there isn't evidentially valuable. 

Sometimes you just gotta go for it. Or let go of it.

Something like skydiving. 

Shall we kill this exchange Ray, and look for a fresh start?
It's likely to die of it's own weight otherwise.

   |
-- J --
   |
   |  Stephen    "geronimooooooooooo"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism