HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: SCHLEGEL@Zeus.unomaha.edu (Mark)
Subject: Re: goedel's proof for existence of god
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:03:57 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

uIn <atten.702563771@groucho.phil.ruu.nl> atten@phil.ruu.nl writes:

>> I would welcome all comments (theologians, logicians, thinkers, dreamers ... 
> unite!)
> 
> Axiom 1.
> (dichotomy) A property is positive iff its negation is negative.
> 
> Axiom 2.
> (closure) A property is positive if it necessarily contains a positive property.
> 
> Theorem 1.
> A positive property is logically consistent (i.e., possibly it has some instance).
> 
> Definition.
> Something is God-like iff it possesses all positive properties.

Using your theorem 1, something is god-like iff it possesses all logically
consistent properties....but many things possess logically consistent
properties and are NOT god-like.
And please define what a positive property is (i am being easy on this,
there are many undefined terms here..god-like, property, etc).
Are the usual properties of god (omniscience, omnipotence, etc) logically
consistent-- nope!

> 
> Axiom 3.
> Being God-like is a positive property.
> 
> Axiom 4.
> Being a positive property is (logical, hence) necessary.

I'm not convinced that all positive properties are necessary.

> 
> Definition.
> A property P is the essence of x iff x has P and P is necessarily minimal.
> 
> Theorem 2.
> If x is God-like, then being God-like is the essence of x.
> 
> Definition.
> NE(x): x necessarily exists if it has an essential property.
> 
> Axiom 5.
> Being NE is God-like.
> 
> Theorem 3.
> Necessarily there is some x such that x is God-like.
From: hibbert@xanadu.com (Chris Hibbert)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: a better answer to Q14 (faith is necessary) in the FAQ
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:06:38 GMT
Organization: Xanadu Operating Company

In article <graham.702437350@dumas> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>It seems to me that this article is relevant to the belief vs
>assumption thread. To me belief is a 'retreat to commitment'. Assumption
>is more in line with what Bartley advocates. You assume certain things
>to be so simply to get on in life, but your philosophy explicitly
>recognises them as assumptions and more importantly as choices from
>a set of equally possible alternatives.
>
>graham

Hmmm.  This doesn't seem quite right.  The "base rule" (as I referred
to it in my original article in this thread) doesn't have to be an
assumption, and the alternatives aren't necessarily equally possible.
One of Bartley's major points is that you can argue about the truth or
validity of various choices for the basic statement.  ("There is a
God", "There is no God", "Use the scientific method to discover what's
true", etc.)  Once you've done that, you have some reason for settling
on one choice of tenets (The others don't work as well).  The others
are not "equally possible", or you would have to choose on faith.

But maybe that's what you meant.  If you mean something like
"revisable opinion" when you say "assumption," and "equally worthy of
being considered" when you say "equally possible", I guess you're
saying the same thing as I am.  Do we agree on everything but
terminology?

Chris
-- 
hibbert@xanadu.com                      AMIX:    CHibbert
uunet!xanadu!hibbert                    MCIMail: CHibbert
From: atten@phil.ruu.nl (Mark van Atten)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: goedel's proof for existence of god
Summary: outline of his proof for god.
Keywords: god,goedel
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:36:11 GMT
Organization: Department of Philosophy, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands

First, this is not repeat not an attempt to apply Goedel's theorem to a
religious question (or any other not concerning formal systems). However,
I read somewhere that Goedel did not find it surprising that his theorem was
used for this kind of argument, arguing that it is justified in some sense.
(Oh, I remember: he wrote that in a letter to his mother, quoted in 'Reflections on Kurt Goedel' by Hao Wang; I will give the full quote next time, ok?)
Goedel was very much influenced by the philosophy of Leibniz, which he studied
very intensively 1943-1944. Goedel made this formalization of Leibniz' proof of
the existence of God (perhaps as outlined in Monadology par.44-45)
I would welcome all comments (theologians, logicians, thinkers, dreamers ... 
unite!)

Axiom 1.
(dichotomy) A property is positive iff its negation is negative.

Axiom 2.
(closure) A property is positive if it necessarily contains a positive property.

Theorem 1.
A positive property is logically consistent (i.e., possibly it has some instance).

Definition.
Something is God-like iff it possesses all positive properties.

Axiom 3.
Being God-like is a positive property.

Axiom 4.
Being a positive property is (logical, hence) necessary.

Definition.
A property P is the essence of x iff x has P and P is necessarily minimal.

Theorem 2.
If x is God-like, then being God-like is the essence of x.

Definition.
NE(x): x necessarily exists if it has an essential property.

Axiom 5.
Being NE is God-like.

Theorem 3.
Necessarily there is some x such that x is God-like.
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: goedel's proof for existence of god
Date: 13 Apr 92 10:17:20 GMT
	<1992Apr7.105744.2945@sics.se> <atten.702905004@groucho.phil.ruu.nl>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <atten.702905004@groucho.phil.ruu.nl> atten@phil.ruu.nl 
(Mark van Atten) writes:

   >1. I think Wang actually quoted Goedel.

  I don't recall Wang claiming that this was the actual proof as formulated
by Godel. Godel was very careful, and very cautious, and it would surprise
me a great deal if in his formulation of the proof the conclusion does
not follow from the premisses.

   >2. Goedel's own formulation is certainly not in Volume II;

  In that case, we'll have to wait for a later volume. According to
Feferman, the proof will indeed be published as part of the collected
works. It was one of the very few things that Godel wanted to make sure
were published after his death.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:51:08 GMT

In article <72839@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>Yes.  I'm responding to some very unpleasant people.  You don't notice,
>since you've apparently decided that any unpleasant remarks that attack
>the "right" group are not really unpleasant after all.  I don't think so.
Normal response or paranoia? You be the judge.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Date: 16 Apr 92 02:31:09 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr8.105311.5844@bsu-ucs.uucp>, 00rkspicher@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
> Back-masking is pretty popular for some musical groups. Pink
> Floyd uses it in the Wall ("Congradulations, you have just found
> the secret message ..."), And ELO (Electric Light Orchestra) use
> it in a very large amount of their material (On the album "Time",
> the second to the last song is played in reverse as the
> background to the second song) None of the songs have "satanic"
> messages on them, but the technology does exist.

[[Kent it taking on his former music producer hat]]

The use of backwards sounds is very, very common with many modern
productions. A very typical trick to get a nice swallow voice is
to record the echo, and turn it backwards, so the bouncing echo starts
before the voice itself, producing a nice chorus. This effect was
over-used during the early 1980:ies (futurist music, Duran Duran
and similar bands).

To state that backwards masking and sounds are used to produce
hidden messages is a very silly idea stated by people who don't know
why music production is needed for - to make a song sound sellable.

Cheers,
Kent
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question about modern manners
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:48:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: jyusenky.1992Apr11.194811.26945
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Apr11.172232.23004@maths.tcd.ie> dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek) writes:
>>Since it is alergy season, people are often sneezing.  In fact, it seems that
>>I sneeze every five minutes.  which brings me to my question.  I am a "devout"
>>atheist, and I don't know what the polite thing to say is when someone blesses
>>me after I sneeze.  It is offensive that someone would think that I need saving
>>and need the blessings of a person or a non-existant god.
>>So what would be the polite response to tell someone?
>	"Gesundheit" comes to mind.

This means "God bless you", as far as I know.

My advice would be to ignore it.  Saying an expression doesn't mean that you
take the expression literally, and especially not for this one, which
originated with the belief the soul was vulnerable when you sneezed (a
superstition not actually part of a religion).
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: smaurer@artin.helios.nd.edu (sean maurer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Book of John
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:01:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr7.190106.2894
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

People (atheists) assert there are numerous'
errors in the Bible and I was just wondering if someone could point out
to me the "errors' in the Book of John. Thanks
sean.

--
Sean Maurer smaurer@artin.helios.nd.edu
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jews in the "real world" (was Re: Judaism and the FAQ file))
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:47:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: goofy.23265
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <73222@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) writes:
> 
> In article <22563@goofy.Apple.COM>, ksand@apple (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >> >I would yet want to see this happen during a Christian sermon. I've 
> >> >never heard of anything similar. Can't say anything about any other
> >> >religions and their holy sermons, [...]
> 
> >> Then shut up.
> 
> >Are you getting angry, should we move this to alt.flame?
> 
> If you don't know what you are talking about, post to alt.stupidity.

You are right, statements like 'then shut up' belongs in both
alt.stupidity and alt.flame.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:08:25 GMT

In article <73491@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.194943.17707@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Did you control for the material discussed? I.e. did you do the
>>same material several times with the same tests using the two
>>methods?
>
>Yes. I taught the identical course several years in a row.  I recycled
>quizzes and so on, and adjusted my explanations based on what worked
>and what didn't.  This was from year to year, and from morning section
>to afternoon section.
Ok. That's a start....
The problem is that we don't have a standard measure of what
"learning calculus" means. It is possible, for instance, that your
method of teaching generated students very good at doing what you
had taught them but terrible at learning new material because they
were burdened by the lies you had told them. You start to see
the complexity of this problem yet?
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:59:26 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <rtdfgINN5kh@cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu>, yohan@cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
> 
> In a followup it was said:
> 
>>> But God is omniscient, and *indeed* knows what's best for you;  How can he
>>> not know what's best for you.  He created all the darn rules, he created
>>> all the calamities you face, he decided what would make you happy, and what
>>> wouldn't.  Even your desire for free will was created by him.  All this, so
>>> he could play games with you, and if you don't match up to his arbitrary
>>> rules, fry you in HELL.   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
> 
> Respsonse:
> 
>>EEAAUUCCHHH!!!  That's not the God of catholicism, which doesn't hold that
>>all you atheists are gonna burn in hell.
> 
> 
> 
> Every devoted protestant I've talked to would argue that we (aetheists and
> agnostics) are going to Hell.  As I've never talked to any devote catholics about
> religion (not that there aren't any or that any of my catholic friends aren't
> devout), I'm curious about what catholics feel merits Hell and their theory about
> the afterlife.
> 
> I would have sent this to the author, but I think it would be good if the basic
> Catholic ideas on this subject were made clear.

OK, I said I wouldn't post, but I don't think I could stand to see the
distortions which are likely to follow.  I *think* the following is safe
to say:

Catholics are not bound to believe that those who are non-catholic or
non-christian or non-theist or atheist are headed for hell.  

In fact, the existence of a place of eternal torment is not dogma, 
and is not accepted by most modern theologians. (I THINK)

Now, this does NOT mean that nonbelievers will be FORCED to live with
God in an after-existence.  

It is a serious catholic theological idea that in the last resort, all
might be 'saved'.  (MIGHT, not ARE)

What happens to those who might reject God face-to-face is a matter of
disagreement and there are no dogmatic pronouncements (that I know of).

Catholics believe, typically, that there is some sort of development of
the person after death ('purgatory')

Karl Rahner says that people who truly accept existence are in some sense
accepting God's communication.

Rejecting life with God is also rejecting life with the eschatological 
community.  

Rejecting God is not to be understood as the same as 'rejecting a 
politician'.  In fact, theology is careful to say that only God can
make the judgement of who has really rejected God; what is the case
for any particular person we cannot know.  The opportunities to accept
God probably extend past this lifetime.

My apologies to the learned,
Joe Deasy
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:12:57 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)

In article <graham.702782737@bizet>, graham@maths (Graham Matthews) writes:
>You demonstrate your paranoia again. I read the 'what wouldn't' as
>a question asking for clarification, but somehow you manage to read
>it as sarcasm. Why is that Matthew? Why is is that you cannot just 
>accept a question as a plain simple question, an enquiry, a request for
>clarification?

Eric has not been running by a string of plain simple questions, so
my metainterpretation meter has been on a higher setting than usual
when I read his postings.

I have no trouble with many other posters, but I notice you don't
notice.  Why not?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA jests or admits atheism? (Was: Re: WEEMBA and DABROWSKI Ang
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:55:37 GMT
 <92101.134646J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Apr14.163425.20412@watson.ibm.com>
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Apr14.163425.20412@watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob
Strom) says:
>
>In article <92101.134646J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>, John A. Johnson
><J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
>writes:
>
>|> >I know very few Jews who would affirm the above [anthropomorphic God] in a
>literal sense.
>|> >Many of us would affirm this in a metaphorical sense --- that is,
>|> >we would teach lessons containing language roughly like this.
>|> >Does that make most of us atheists?
>|>
>|> In a word, yes.  Certain rabid, anti-religious atheists might not agree
>|> with me, but in my book, any person who regards gods as metaphors is an
>|> atheist.  I myself have been know to light candles on Imbolc, and I do
>|> not think this makes me any less an atheist.  Welcome aboard.
>
>Thanks for the invitation.   I don't know anything about
>Imbolc, but exactly how much religious practice would
>go beyond the limits for your invitation to stand?

I can't imagine any limits.

>
>Would you consider an Orthodox Jew who intellectually believes
>that God is not anthropomorphic, but who nevertheless puts on tfillin
>and tallit, recites the Shema, davens 3 times a day, wears fringes,
>observes Shabbat, etc., an atheist?  Or a Catholic who believes
>that God is a metaphorical being but prays the rosary
>and attends mass?

Absolutely, if they regarded God as only a metaphor.  Other atheists may
disagree with me, of course.

>Perhaps by your definition close
>to a majority of the world is atheist.

I wish you were right, but I do not think you are.
-----------------------------------
John A. Johnson (J5J@psuvm.psu.edu)
Department of Psychology Penn State DuBois Campus 15801
Penn State is not responsible for my behavior.
"A ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of
 another sort.  Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing
 metaphysics is a part of life."  - from _Lila_ by R. Pirsig
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 16 Apr 1992 08:38:21 EDT
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Does truth necessarily entail certainty and/or proof?
 <92106.081858J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <4dv8oom00ioX4EOFFY@andrew.cmu.edu>

In article <4dv8oom00ioX4EOFFY@andrew.cmu.edu>, jn1a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jad Nehme)
says:
>
>>Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 15-Apr-92 Re: Truth John A.
>>Johnson@psuvm.ps (530)
>
>>In article <1992Apr15.033458.13891@access.usask.ca>,
>>choy@skorpio.Usask.CA says:
>>>
>>>What do we know to be true?
>>
>>You will die.
>
>What makes you think I am like every other human being dead so far?  Can
>you prove your statement?  I didn't want to tell anyone, but,  since you
>are bringing up the subject, I'll put you in: I can't die of old age.
>
>Jad Nehme.

You left out my other truth:  you will be taxed.
Gosh, maybe I should have drawn a smiley face.

But if you want to be serious, why does truth have to be linked to
proof and/or certainty?  Let me suggest that one does not have to be certain
of a truth or prove a truth in order to utter a truth.

John A. Johnson
Penn State is not responsible for my behavior.
"Don't take yourself too seriously/There are precious few things worth hating
 nowadays/And none of them is me." -- Todd Rundgren
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: No-one cares anymore
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:22:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: apollo.1992Apr8.202247.17219
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

I am not going to be so bold as Mr. Ho-Stuart and propose any negative
judgments of any of the participants, but I will emphatically second
the thrust indicated by the Subject.

I was actively interested in the prospect of bringing some discussion
of different religious traditions, in this case Jewish, into the
eternal Christian-centered debates and nebulous epistemology which are
the common fare here.  I still feel that way, though I'd rather see it
as discourse and explanation than simple insult or accusation of
ignorance.  Feel free to point out erroneous assumptions or
generalizations, but please explain in just what way they are wrong,
and try to teach rather than flame.

Since alt.atheism was created (at least a couple of years ago), I've
never resorted to creating a KILL file entry for an individual (and
only occasionally for a specific thread or cross-posts from a specific
newsgroup), but recently I've been tempted to do so.

How about we just stop responding to all these "is too/is not/drop
dead" threads, especially those completely divorced from the topic of
atheism.  If there is meat in a discussion, fine, continue it; I would
much rather express this as "end the pointless threads" than as "stop
threads on <subject X>" or "ignore <person Y>".  
-- 
Jim Perry   perry@apollo.hp.com    HP/Apollo, Chelmsford MA
This particularly rapid, unintelligible patter
Isn't generally heard, and if it is it doesn't matter!
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:10:25 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Apr4.201457.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>Jim Lippard:
>> And this is based upon an incompatibilist notion of free will which is
>> difficult, if not impossible, to formulate coherently.  It is not required
>> that God make beings with free will who *must* always choose good, but
>> only that he make beings with free will who *do* always choose good.
>
>Since the free will I am talking about means free will to do evil,
>and since the number of chances men and women have to make choices
>to do good or evil is in fact infinite (since time is continuous)
>the only possible way for people to not do evil is for the probability
>of doing evil to be identically equal to zero.  Since this contradicts
>the notion of free will, I conclude that God cannot create people
>who have free will and who will, in fact, not do any evil whatsoever.

It's perfectly possible for an infinite sequence of heads-or-tails
choices to come up all heads; the probability is just infinitesimal.
You have not made a case that free will necessitates evil; you
have only presented a plausible reason for skepticism regarding
a universe with both free will and freedom from evil (given the
particular definition of free will you are using).

Furthermore, one of your premises may be wrong; if quantum
mechanics is correct then time very well may not be
continuous.

Finally, if God is omniscient, then he knows before creating
an individual whether that individual will choose to do
evil. He could choose simply not to create any of the
ones who will.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dadams@cherry.cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: worker bees  (was: RE: another greeting)
Originator: dadams@cherry
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 6 Apr 92 10:54:06 CDT


In article <1992Apr3.081602.30593@wpi.WPI.EDU>, entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:


> 
> Explain the existance of worker bees :-)
> 

This was at best a false analogy.  At worst it works against you.

There is NO genetic difference between the worker bee and the queen.
When the queen in a hive dies some of the larva that would have grown
to be worker bees are fead a higher portion of royal jelly, causing
them to develop into queen bees instead of workers.

They had the same genes.  It was what happened to them in their
larval stages that made the difference.

-david adams      dadams@cray.com
_______________________________________________________________________
Assistant Scout Master Troop 901
Indian Head Council, BSA