HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:58:10 GMT


jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:

>Ok. Here we go. I posted to this group once with the claim that I could
>prove the existance of God. A bunch of people came clammering to my
>mailbox demanding I post this proof so here it is:

>1) Disclaimers. The opinions expressed within are soley mine. They come
>from no book (although based on a certain book), come from no other
>person (although based on the life of another person). I take full
>responsibility and credit for my views.

>2) Basic outline of the approach I intend to take:
>	A) The Bible is absolutely true.
>	B) The Bible claims that God exists.
>	C) God exists.


>3) a) Proof that the Bible is absolutely true:
[Basically claims that although you can't show everything in the bible
is true everything you can check is, so why not believe the rest.
Culminates with this gem...]

>	Now look at the Bible again. It is a collection of related state-
>	ments of fact. Many of the things it relates are true. Many of
>	it's statements are uncertain. NONE of it has been proven false,
>	or even approached the point of being legitimately attacked. (If
>	you have one I'll be glad to fight you over it). So how is this
>	any different? It isn't. The same thought process and generaliza-
>	tion techniques that are considered valid and a mark of higher
>	intelligence in the world can be applied here as well. It makes
>	logical sence for the Bible to be true.


Well, this is a really interesting claim, which I can dispatch with
not one but two arguments.

First of all, there are statements in the Bible that are demonstrably
FALSE, such as the indirect implication at one point that PI is equal
to exactly three, and the apparent claim that the universe is only
five thousand years old.

Second, your argument could be used just as easily to demonstrate that
God doesn't exist, you know. I could simply go out and write up a book
of thousands of demonstrably correct facts and include in the list the
assertion "God does not exist", and by your argument I would therefore
be obligated to disbelieve in God.

I could poke other holes as well, but these seem large enough to drive
trucks through.

You don't have anything on St. Anselm or St. Aquinas. Their "proofs"
at least followed fairly solid logic (if dubious premises) and didn't
rely on weak and demonstrably false distortions of empiricism.

I was hoping for much better from you.

In any case, this doesn't belong in alt.philosophy.objectivism. I've
directed followup to alt.atheism. Take it there.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
From: leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson)
Subject: Re: Ignoring the  Unknown
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 16:23:40 GMT


|> What I can't accept is any claim to certainty; there's just something
|> so arrogant about it that it has the opposite of the intended affect;
|> I refuse to even consider the point argued.
|> 
|> Bill
|> 
|> 

In other words, since you tried to understand reality, failed and gave up,
you find it insulting that anyone else would be successful.  This is the same
thing as congressional 'Soak the Rich.'  Punish those that are successful
BECAUSE they are successful.
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:47:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <C1DF94.CG1@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Zell) writes...
>By the way, another interesting fact that I heard from a guy who works for
>Campus Crusade for Christ as an outdoor evengelist. (First name Cliffe,
>don't know the last name) He said there was some statician guy someplace
>that was looking at the prophecies about Jesus. There are about 430 of them.
>He computed the odds of 50 of them all referring to one person in history are 
>same as if you covered the state of Texas with coins, took a coin, threw it back
>mixed up ALL the coins in Texas, and drew the same one out. And that was only
>for 50 of them to refer to the same person. Not a direct proof that God exists,
>but you start adding up the ones that you know are true (He died on a cross, he
>was whipped before he died, etc, a lot of this written many years before the 
>Roman Empire came into existance, and it makes you wonder.
>Joe


	Actually, what it proves is that the chances that the Bible
is not an historically accurate document are the same as flipping your
coin as many times as you said.

	Read the book _Gospel Fictions_.  The author makes the point
that no New Testament writer would have dared write down anything that
would contradict the Old Testament.  Those writers would assume that
any of the oral tradition that went in to the New Testament writings was
"not true" if it contradicted their beliefs.

	For example, let's say that "Mathew" was interviewing someone
who claimed to be the son of someone who witnessed the crucifiction
of Jesus.

Mathew: "How did Jesus die?"

Son of witness: "The Roman soldiers broke His legs and He died afterwards."

Mathew: "Are you sure about that?"

Son of witness: "That is what my father told me."

Mathew (writing down notes):  According to the Torah, Jesus did not
  have any bones broken.  This witness must be misremembering.
  Clearly, Jesus must have been stabed instead.  I'll just make
  that correction in my gospel.  Why can't I find good witnesses?

---OR---

Mathew: "Are you sure about that?  According to the Holy Torah, the
  Messiah never had any broken bones in his life!  Are you contradicting
  the Word of God?

Son of witness: "No! No!  I remember now!  My father said Jesus was
  stabbed instead.  Yes, now I remember!"


	There is the source of the amazing similarity!  It was built
in by the writers.  No predictions at all.


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb)
Subject: Re: Gandalph Exists. Proof within.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:48:49 GMT
Keywords: Lord of the Rings

rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:

>Gandalph the Grey exists. How do I know.

>1. Every word of Lord of the Rings is True.
>2. Lord of the Rings says Gandalph the Grey Exists.
>3. Therfore Gandalph the Grey Exists.

>How do I know LOTR is true. I have not found a single counter example to
>anything said in LOTR. (Of course that could be because I am in the wrong
>Universe). The rest follows by logic commonly used in the Shire.

Oops. I am so sorry. I should have seen this coming. I guess you got me.
My original statement is faulty. Oh, the agony. I guess I'll just have to
change my original statement to "God exists in this universe."
I mean this universe, here on Earth, this dimension, etc. The Egypt of 
the bible is the same Egypt of history. The people of the Bible lived on
this earth in the places on the Earth the Bible says they lived at. The
events of the Bible happened here in the past (our past, under normal def-
initions of time, past and present (not alternate ones)). There. That should
make it more clear. I sincerely apologize for that oversighton my part. I was
so wrong to assume that people would just understand what I was talking about.
Thanks for pointing that out. I hope I have made myself more clear. If not,
then I could try to make myself even more specifically clear, but I think
there are a few people who did understand what I was talking about.

Oh, BTW, since you pointed out my mistake, I'll point out yours. Gandalf
the Grey no longer exists according to the Lord of the Rings. He was comsumed
by the Balrog (or whatever it was) at the stone pass over the chasm in
the mountain halls of the ancient dwarves. The person that immerged from
that encounter of Gandalf the White. QED. :-)
Sorry. I'm in a flame mode and your statement was a little inflamatory 
itself. :-) (It's all in the spirit of good discussion.)


-- 
H. Ross Perot | "How do you always manage to    | Jeff R. Lamb
for President | decide?" 			| Midnight Arrow
of the United | "How do you let others decide   | Champion of Reality
States in '96 | for you?"	   -Ayn Rand 	| (jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu)
From: abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: God doesn't exist
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:47:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

mdc@crash.cts.com (Milo D. Cooper)
>In article <C1FqD7.Hos@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gambit@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>=
>=The fact that every entity does not require a cause is obvious, because the
>=Universe (if we take it to be the totality of existence) obviously did not
>=have a cause.  There could be nothing to cause existence, because it would
>=have to exist itself.
>=
>=Benjamin W. Lagow

>        How is it, then, that from such a nihilistic origin of life
>emerged conscious life aware of its past, and thus concerned with its
>future?  Logic is subject to the dictates of experience.

Logical extrapolation is subject to the dictates of experience,
but a living thing has new experiences every day. If it remembers them,
then it can use logic to profit from experience.

Consciousness is not confined to the dictates of experience, although it
makes copious use of it. It is a Monte Carlo simulator with powerful pattern
matching capabilities, able to project past experience, and even inexperience,
into the future. The abstract mechanism isn't even that complicated. People
are building the precursors of artificial consciousnesses right now. They're
called "Agents". The two ingredients they've left out are self-interest and
the possibility of death.

Steve abell@netcom.com
From: violett@indiana.edu (Andrew Violette             ,,,)
Subject: Re: Evidence for the market
Reply-To: violett@indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:14:02 GMT

In article 18076@zooid.guild.org, Jose Garcia <jgarcia@zooid.guild.org> () writes:
>violett@indiana.edu writes:
>>I am a little bit confused as to what your definition of free market is.  A
>>free market defined only under "limited circumstances" is not a free market,
>>it is a regulated market.  I guess in this context Gorbachev, Clinton, and
>>anybody else more liberal than Stalin, is pro-free-market.

>     Then you (or was it someone else) have referred to Japan as a free
>market. I allways hear people using Japan as an example of what a free market
>can do. These examples are flawed. The U.S.A is a much more free market than
>Japan and although its economy is strong hasn't being doing very well.
>
>   Japan is a country with massive trade restrictions, not to mention
>government telling companies what  to do in a very active way.
>
>    Does this sound like a free market to you? 
>

It  WAS someone else.  There has never existed a true free market 
any where in the world.  I would say that America in the late nineteenth 
century was about as close as any society has every gotten to a free 
market.   What I was trying  to clear up was that  "free market" is an 
absolute term.  You cannot be pro-free-market and promote ANY kind 
regulations.  This is why it makes me laugh when Bill Clinton says he is 
pro-free-market.

I think we can mainly trace this ignorance of the term "free market" back 
to our schools.  Enroll in any political science class or economics class at 
IU and I gaurantee you that Karl Marx or Keynes will be mentioned.  But 
you will never hear about their counterparts: Ayn Rand and Hayek.  Until 
our society clears up this usage, and stops associating every person who 
promotes some kind of market system with a free market, will we ever emerge 
from this quagmire of socialism.


---
Andrew Violette
Junior, Computer Science
Indiana University

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: tjm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Timothy Minvielle)
Subject: What is objectivism?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 05:02:31 GMT



Could someone please tell me, briefly, what objectivism is and how it relates to libertarianism?

You may respond directly to this account.

Thanks.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Altruism and Causes vs. Reasons
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 03:54:53 GMT

In article <1jnpo3INNmau@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>the word "selfish" means "concerned with the self". the rest
>>of the negative baggage such as "not caring about others" that
>>many people attach to the word is an interpretation only.
>     
>     Sorry to disagree with you (well, not really...B+), but selfishness DOES
>have a negative meaning implied i.e.concerned with the self TO THE POINT OF NOT
>CARING ABOUT THE OTHER(S).  That Ayn used "selfishness" with an archaic meaning
>(if it had that meaning at all) does not change its general meaning.

gee. i seem to remember ending this thread last week.

>>yes, words mean whatever people agree they do, but that does
>>not mean there cannot be drift in meaning. and Rand wrote her
>>works many years ago.
>
>     If I remember right, she used (and redfined) the term "selfish" knowing
>full well what everyone else meant when they used the term "selfish."  It was
>her conscious choice, and the resulting trouble in communications was the price
>paid.

gee. i seem to remember already making this point a couple of eons ago.

>>unless you can produce a degree in etymology, you will forgive
>>my ignoring your challenge. if anyone out there actually
>>has some *authority* to speak on the matter, please do.
>
>     Do you know english?  Since when did a degree in etymology become the
>password for talking about word meanings?  Ayn didn't even KNOW English before
>immigrating to the US.

you have jumped into the middle of a long-settled dispute.

>>>Just think of it, all those millions of people, for all those hundreds
>>>of years before Rand was born, not knowing what this word meant.
>>
>>stuff it, Mark.
>
>Ponder it, Charles.  I myself find it amusing.  B+)

next time you join a new newsgroup, please be courteous enough
to peruse the threads to which you respond before posting such
drivel.

amuse yourself at your own expense.

>Kamchatka Charlie     KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu
>an EX-objectivist, and glad about it.

maybe we should be glad, too.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cs122057@sol.yorku.ca
Subject: More Rand Movies
Organization: York University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:15:34 GMT

For anyone interested in more movies by Ayn Rand;  there is an Italian
production of _We the Living_ (with English subtitles) available on
videocassette.  The movie was made in 1942 and was banned by the Italian
government when they discovered it was just as antiauthoritarian as it was
anticommunist.  I have not seen the entire film, but from what I have seen, 
it appears to be good. 
Ayn Rand also wrote the screenplay to a 1945 movie:_Love Letters_.  It is not
available on videocassette so you'll have to catch it on Tv (if you wish). 
I have not seen it and don't know if its good.


Randy Levy           "Don't you know how big a commission this is?...                          
                      You need the commission.  Do you have to be
                      quite so fanatical and selfless about it?"
                      ...
                     "That was the most selfish thing you've 
                      ever seen a man do."  


                                                         AYN RAND     
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: xerox
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:20:23 GMT

Is Xerox using Objectivist epistemology for computers?
________________________________________________________________________________
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:56:18 GMT

In article <C17y16.Jt6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:

>	One of human's greatest assets is the ability to see a group
>	seemingly random, unpredictable data points, and distingush
>	a pattern from this chaos. Humans can GENERALIZE. This means
>	they can infer from interelated facts. Humans can see a pattern
>	and project it into the future. 
[deleted]
>	Now look at the Bible again. It is a collection of related state-
>	ments of fact. Many of the things it relates are true. Many of
>	it's statements are uncertain. NONE of it has been proven false,
>	or even approached the point of being legitimately attacked. (If
>	you have one I'll be glad to fight you over it). So how is this
>	any different? It isn't. The same thought process and generaliza-
>	tion techniques that are considered valid and a mark of higher
>	intelligence in the world can be applied here as well. It makes
>	logical sence for the Bible to be true.

As promised, no flames, but some legitimate questions:

Assuming some Biblical statements are provably true, do you think that
the *majority* of the Bible is provably true?  (If 99% of the
statements, or even 51% are provably true, then it is more convincing
for the rest than if only 10% are provably true.)

If this reasoning can be applied to the Bible, why can it not be
applied to some other books as well, that contradict the Bible?  For
example, the Koran states, I believe, that Jesus was a prophet, but
not the son of God, which is in direct contradiction with the Bible.

Don't Biblical statements have to be rather loosely interpreted in
order to be proven true?  If so, mustn't the Biblical description of
God be loosely interpreted?  (For example, some people say that God
exists only as a powerful symbol of goodness or love.)  This gets back
to my question about how you define God.

-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb)
Subject: Re: LAST POST!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:21:59 GMT

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:

>well, thanks for putting something interesting in the newsgroup,
>but frankly, i was quite disappointed with your arguments. your position
>has many serious holes in it, and i can't seriously believe that
>you actually think you have answered them sufficiently.

>the fallacy of equating truth with non-falsehood (which you use
>indirectly, though you don't come right out and say it)
>is so fundamental that any high school logic student
>can demonstrate it. the fallacy of assuming that 
>because much of a book is true that all of it is, is probably worse --
>it doesn't even pass the muster of common sense.

>if you can actually make an argument like this, and still think
>after reading all the counter-arguments that your "proof" is valid,
>well, that must be the best way i could think of of demonstrating
>that belief in God requires faith -- because that is the only way
>an intelligent person could stand by your arguments.

>thanks for your efforts though.

Couldn't let me get away without taking a cheap shot? Ok. I'll let you
get away with it this time. :-) Remember it's all in good humor.

-- 
H. Ross Perot | "How do you always manage to    | Jeff R. Lamb
for President | decide?" 			| Midnight Arrow
of the United | "How do you let others decide   | Champion of Reality
States in '96 | for you?"	   -Ayn Rand 	| (jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: God doesn't exist
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:24:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.101937.18534@netcom.com>, abell@netcom.com (Steven T. 
Abell) writes:

>Sorry folks, but words either have meanings or they don't.
>The word "God" doesn't.

SG	Everything exists. Everything exists within some limit.	God exists 
within some limit: imagination, emotion, error, faith, fear, angst, a word,
foolishness, nonsense, etc., etc.
	You may have confused reality with existence. God exists but not within 
the limit of reality.             
           
________________________________________________________________________________
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Actors as Rand Characters (Re: Fountainhead: The Motion Picture)
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:45:31 GMT

In article <C1AGwA.1pL@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j) writes:
>What I find unbelievable is that Ayn Rand wanted Raquel Welch
>to play Dagny Taggart! I don't see that working at all.

SG	If we can ignore Welchs body (hah!) she does have a good sense of life 
(which may have been Rand's point) but she's not a profound actress
>
>I agree with a posting from a few days ago; Katharine Hepburn
>would have been the best Dagny.  Too bad she was too old to play
>her even before "Atlas Shrugged" was even written.

SG	I think you are right about Hepburn. She was better than most people 
know in _Trojan Women_, an emotionally draining tragedy.
________________________________________________________________________________
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================