HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:42:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.222359.24620@athena.mit.edu> tyadav@athena.mit.edu
 (T.Y.) writes:

     [quoting a book on Spinoza:]
    >YET BECAUSE HE IDENTIFIED GOD WITH NATURE, he

  Yes, but what did Spinoza mean by identifying God with nature? It's
not uncommon on the net for people to speak as though Spinoza's talk about
God can be understood by translating it into talk about nature, or the
laws of nature, or something of the sort, as we understand those terms.
However, this is not at all the case. To understand what Spinoza means
by these things (which I, by the way, don't claim to do) we must look at
his actual writings. Consider for example Spinoza's remarks in the Appendix
to part I of the Ethics (in the Elwes translation):

     In the foregoing I have explained the nature and properties of God.
     I have shown that he necessarily exists, that he is one: that he is,
     and acts, solely by the necessity of his own nature; that he is the
     free cause of all things, and how he is so; that all things are in
     God, and so depend on him, that without him they could neither exist
     nor be conceived; lastly, that all things are predetermined by God,
     not through his free will or absolute fiat, but from the very nature
     of God or infinite power.

  So if we believe that Spinoza identifies God with nature or harmony or
something of the sort in some sense that is OK with us, we should be
prepared to explain how comments such as the above are true of nature or
harmony etc.
From: cole@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Sandra Stewart-Cole)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:00:37 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

In <1993Jan22.223654.7050@mks.com> hugh@mks.com (Hugh Brown) writes:

>1.   The universe is everything that is.
> Something that created the universe is not  in the universe.
> Something that is not in the universe does not exist.
> THerefore, God does not exist.
>2.   From the Objectivist point of view, proof is the reduction of
> a concept or argument to the perceptable.  It involves showing
> how things exist in reality.  If you have soemthing that is outside
> the universe, that has no material form or appearance, then how
> could one go about proving that it exists? Certainly not by
> pointing at it and saying, "There it is."  The point here is that
> the thing is outside of our ability to show and thus not provable.

>Now you may disagree with my thumbnail proofs or with my definitions.
>I think, however, that they give an indication of a more fertile location
>to begin the discussion:  definitions and fundamentals.

I consider (1) seriously flawed. If you look at the Theist view of God, you 
have a creation picture that has God creating the universe and then inhabiting
it. If you allow logically an act of creation, it implies an existence of some
sort apart from the creature of that act. In a sense you also have a definition
problem with 'creation' since that can mean any of a range of things on a 
physical level, from the establishment of a pre-existing condition which 
deterministically leads to wht we have today, to a creation in situ of 
precisely what we see now, to the establishment of all the various physical 
laws and setting of the various basic constant p[hysical values (like the speed
of light and the gravitational constant) that structure the universe. 
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: what i think of ayn rand
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:27:43 GMT

In article <93025.135012RMACMIL@auvm.american.edu>, RMACMIL@auvm.american.edu (Robert B. MacMillan) writes:
>after having read the fountainhead, i can honestly say that i think she
>is one of the most talented writers in the western world.
>that was my first opinion.  my second is that she has the shittiest most
>reprehensible, pseudo-fascist philosophy i have ever had the misfortune to
>read.  i am glad she's dead.
>help, someone, please recommend me something that will make me feel different
>about this cold-hearted bitch who can write like no one i've ever seen...

SG	_Mein Kampf_, _The Republic_, _Critique of Pure Reason_, _Being and 
Time_, _Book of the Dead_, _Howl_, _The Bible_, _The Koran_, _The Wasteland_, 
and to sum up the preceding, President Slickwillie's Inaugural Address and Maya 
Angelou's "On the Pulse of Morning."
________________________________________________________________________________
	"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: what i think of ayn rand
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:32:35 GMT

In article <C1Fpz1.HG0@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, gambit@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>In article <93025.135012RMACMIL@auvm.american.edu> Robert B. MacMillan <RMACMIL@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>>after having read the fountainhead, i can honestly say that i think she
>>is one of the most talented writers in the western world.
>>that was my first opinion.  my second is that she has the shittiest most
>>reprehensible, pseudo-fascist philosophy i have ever had the misfortune to
>>read.  i am glad she's dead.
>>help, someone, please recommend me something that will make me feel different
>>about this cold-hearted bitch who can write like no one i've ever seen...
>
>"Pseudo-fascist"?????  I know how you can feel different about her.  Reread
>the book, and PAY ATTENTION this time!
>
>You are not the first person I've heard say this.  Someone please explain to
>me how in the hell you can read her works and get the idea that she is
>advocating facism (as you said), or communism (one I heard before).  Such an
>evaluation is in absolute contradiction to EVERYTHING she wrote!

SG	Many think Rand a fascist by claiming that all human relations are 
sacrificial (with no room for mutual profit) and that if one denies passive 
sacrifice, aggressive sacrifice is the only alternative.
	As for the claim that Rand is a communist, that is beyond me. Can you 
outline the "argument."
________________________________________________________________________________
	"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: st891054@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (Rand)
Subject: Re: objectivist candidates
Reply-To: st891054@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:08:52 GMT

-----QUOTED----
Does anyone know of any  true Objectivist candidates that ran in the 1992
presidential campaign?
 
How about in any senatorial or house races? Please, I'm only interested in
those that specifically talk about objectivist beliefs, not adaptations of
centerist beliefs to objectivist ideals.  Please write back or email
me with a response. If you can, please include any specifics about their
positions on current issues as well.
------UNQUOTE------
Well, I don't know of any candidates, but Justice Clarence Thomas, in an 
interview with Reason while he was the head of the EOC, said that the
Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged were some of his favorite books.
And, as we all know, Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Fed, was in
Rand's inner circle for years.

-David Kaufman
ST891054@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: An Observation
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:51:15 GMT
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <1k2fshINNmfk@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu writes:
}>
}>Strictly speaking, comparing two cities isn't fair since they aren't
}>identical.
}Quite a bit.  Here's a few differences:
}New York (Pre-fifties portions, and Manhatten today) sprawls upward, Houston
}     sprawls outward (a collapsing house kills off five, maybe ten at the most.
}     Collapsing tenaments kill off hundreds, maybe thousands).
}New York has winters.

There's no statistically significant correlation between homelessness and
climate that I know of.  There is one between rent control, between high
median housing prices (caused by zoning), and the presence of blacks or
hispanics in a community.  See The Excluded Americans: Homelessness and
Housing Policies by William Tucker on this.

}Houston is younger than New York.

They're both over a century old.

}New York's highways are crowded because of all the people around it; Houston's
}     highways are crowded from intentended neglect.

Both are crowded due to high demand and zero tolls.

}>Compare Japan to India.

Actually, the two best case studies are West and East Germany during the
period in which there was one, and between North and South Korea.

}>You could compare poverty levels before and after the Great Society programs.
}     Vietnam also happened during that time, draining much of the energy of
}society from constructive activities benefiting the nation towards destructive
}activities both here and elsewhere.  Our nation has yet to recover from it.

4 times as many Americans die each year in auto accidents than died in the
entire Vietnam war.  Much more money has been spent on domestic aid to the
poor than on the Vietnam war.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: what i think of ayn rand
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:11:18 GMT

In article <C1J7v4.1H9@news.cso.uiuc.edu> czeller@ih-nxt04.cso.uiuc.edu
 (Christopher M Zeller) writes:

   >Emotionally coercive?! Isn't that what rhetoric is all about? Without 
   >any set form of mathematical, logical method for proving a philosophy
   >that is all we are left with.

  Arguments take many forms, and need not be either "logical proof" or
"emotional coercion".
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: An Observation
Keywords: Ethical Problems,Marginal Problems
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:37:13 GMT

In article <1jsp2oINNsoa@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:
}In article <C10oz7.19G@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk
}(Chris Holt) writes:
}|     There is a clear implication that there would be less unemployment
}|     less squalor, and less crime under a more laissez-faire government.
}
}I would like very much to know for sure whether this is true.
}
}In article <1993Jan22.121827.18170@genie.slhs.udel.edu> 
}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}|[...]  I can think of two
}|standards of proof for the implication in question: historical case studies,
}|and deduction from the action axiom of Ludwig von Mises. 
}
}Perhaps you could describe for us this deduction, and/or give
}reference(s)?

How about the latter: "Man, Economy, and State," by Murray Rothbard.  It's
a bit easier upon the reader than "Human Action," by Ludwig von Mises.
These will both go for the deductive argument.  As for the historical,
how about "The Politics of Unemployment," by Hans Sennholz, as I recall.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Evidence for the market
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:00:39 GMT

In article <C17LHA.BEB@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>violett@indiana.edu (Andrew J Violette) writes:
>>Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>
>> I guess in this context Gorbachev, Clinton, and
>>anybody else more liberal than Stalin, is pro-free-market.

SG	Liberal-one who drives from public airport over public roads on public 
bus to public university, accepts fee from university, and damns US as a 
capitalist economy.
	Doesn't anyone recall the capitalist insight that govt economic 
intervention has long-term, indirect, hidden, subtle, unintended side-effects?!
Most economists have failed to use science to systematically identify the 
pattern of indirect effects.
________________________________________________________________________________
	"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>
================================================================================
From: ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Date: 22 Jan 1993 00:45:28 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: gauss.math.ubc.ca

In article <TORKEL.93Jan21194341@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se 
(Torkel Franzen) writes:

| [...] that A is meaningless because it is paradoxical. This is not very
| illuminating,
| for it does not give us any insight at all into what uses of the predicate
| "x is a true sentence" are meaningful, and how such meaningful uses
| can be understood. In short, philosophers have wanted to do better.

Yes.

In article <1993Jan21.200916.26386@ulrik.uio.no> 
solan@smaug.uio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:
|The sentence is not meaningless because it is paradoxical, but because
|it is not constructive, i.e. built from elements already possessing
|meaning. Paradoxical sentences just happen to be non-constructive, and
|therefore meaningless. It is because they are meaningless that they
|can appear to be paradoxical. If I recognize your name right, you are
|a mathematician (from Sweden), so you should know this.

I suspect there is some element of truth in what you are saying, but
it is difficult to state exactly what "constructive" can really be
taken to mean here, or what kind of "building from elements" is
involved.

Consider, for example,

 (*) If X and Y are true sentences, then (X and Y) is a true sentence.

If reference to the truth of a sentence makes that other sentence
being referred to part of the "construction" of the sentence, then it
is hard to see how we can affirm a claim like (*); it can only be
"constructed" after all true sentences have been constructed. So a
simple-minded implementation of the idea, that the problem with
paradoxical sentences lies in the impossibility of building them up
from the sentences to which they refer, cuts much too deeply into our
ability to discuss truth and logic in general. Your claim

   "Paradoxical sentences just happen to be non-constructive, and
   therefore meaningless."

is an example of the kind of assertion which can easily fall into the
"not constructive" category in such a scheme.

The point is that the paradoxes pose a non-trivial obstacle for a
person who wants to produce a comprehensive account of language and
meaning. I know of no easy solution, and doubt one is known. I think
we've established now at least that a simple application of the law of
identity does not suffice.

Keith Ramsay            "Being a computer means not having 
ramsay@math.ubc.ca       to say you're sorry."
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: GOD.
Keywords: god
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:56:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.212250.24118@crash> mdc@crash.cts.com (Milo D. Cooper) writes:
>	The human mind is a passive system for the processing of
>information.  Intellect, personality, and ideas are formed through
>interaction with one's environment and no one can achieve active
>thought to allow perception beyond that dictated by experience.
>Anything that any of us ever does is a reaction to established
>elements of the outer environment (the space beyond our bodies) or
>the inner environment (bodily functions).  Everything we do, we do
>for a reason.  Everything we do, we are moved to do, because we
>are creatures of reaction, and not of action.  Reasons for reaction
>are irrelevant at this point; they may be moral reasons or immoral
>reasons or good reasons or bad reasons or obvious reasons or incon-
>spicuous ones.

I agree with this at a certain level.  However, some might say this
absolves us of responsibility for our actions, since they are caused
by our inner and outer environment.  I must disagree with this, as the
elements of our environment which contribute to our actions are
innumerable, and the way in which they cause our actions are
complicated.  In other words, since we cannot fully know the causes of
our actions, we must assume for convenience that there is free will.

Is there a place for a soul in this view of the human being?

>	Progress of any kind is due to a flaw of human information
>processing which distorts incoming information based on the way in
>which one's mind is shaped by his/her inner and outer environments.

Believe me, it's a feature, not a bug!

>Our minds divide environments into attention areas based on our
>experience and personal biases.  Insight, the element common to all
>revered figures of history, is a chance defying of logical reasoning
>which reveals a novel and/or better method of information processing.
>Logic itself can only proceed along mental pathways already defined
>by experience.  The best way to innovate is not by engaging in lo-
>gical thought; the best way to innovate is by making a mistake, be-
>cause logic is simply a process involving one reaction after another
>which deliberately avoids any seemingly irrelevant or contradictory
>information.

I think I can agree with (or at least give you the benefit of the
doubt on) a lot of what you are saying, even though you haven't stated
it in the best manner.  I'd like to know where this is all leading,
however.

-- 
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: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:54:14 GMT

absinthe@viva.chem.washington.edu (Daniel Faken) writes:

>In article <C17y16.Jt6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey  
>Richard Lamb) writes:
>> 3) a) Proof that the Bible is absolutely true:
>[...]
>> 	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.

>An absence of contrary evidence does not mean something is correct.

True, lack of disproof <> proof, but failure to acknowledge strong evidence
is illogical. Also the closer you come to proving a whole the more credence
you should give the idea. The theory of relativity hasn't been proven, but
no evidence has come up against it and every test we have been able to
think of has supported the ideal. Why is acceptance of the Bible different.

>Besides, a god (like 'the ether') can easily be defined so that it's
>  'existance' (or non-'existance') is not proveable.

In the same way it is easy to define God so his existance and non-existance
are both proveable (though not at the same time I think).
If you need a definition of God to work with use this one: God is that
thing which is referred to by the word "God" (and other similar names (Lord,
Jesus, etc) in the Bible. Now go with that definition.


-- 
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: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:43:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.173748.27492@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com 
(Robert Baruch) writes:

   >I now feel that when you say A = "A is false", the quotes indicate 
   >a literal a string with no inherent meaning.

  Why do you have to "feel" this? I have said explicitly more than
once that A is defined as a sentence in the sense of a string of
symbols. It is when we ask whether A is true that the question of its
meaning (if any) arises. You have made the natural suggestion that
since accepting A as a meaningful sentence leads to a paradox, A is
not in fact a meaningful sentence. To this it has been replied that such
a suggestion doesn't take us very far.

  >However, you must tell me what you mean by a "meaningful use of a sentence".

  I didn't speak of the meaningful use of sentences, but of the
meaningful use of the predicate "x is a true sentence". If we take the
view that "A is a false sentence" is meaningless if "A" refers to the
sentence itself, the question arises which sentences of the form "S is a
false sentence", where "S" stands for some term denoting a sentence,
are in fact meaningful.