From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Believers: What Would Make You Not Believe In GOD?
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 00:13:27 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <11JAN199314080004@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>Gee, Ray, so few people on the net seem to mean it when they sign a
>posting. I get a kick out of your "Sincerely." I think you actually
>mean it.

 Well, I do.

[gobs of nested attributions deleted]
>>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.

>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.
 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.
 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.

>>[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.

[deletions]
>> 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.

>>>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?

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

 Why?

>>>>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...

>>[deletions]
>>>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.
 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.

>>>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.)

>>[deletions]
>>>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.

>>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.

>>>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?

 Sincerely,
 
 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?" -- Woody Allen