From: morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke)
Subject: Re: bug in FAQ file
Organization: TRIUMF, Vancouver BC
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:12:57 GMT

> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>Assumptions are statements taken as true; no information is "created".

Where does the information content of the statement come from, then?
Or are you claiming that assumptions have no information content?

>It is unwarranted, given MERELY THE ASSUMPTION THAT A PIT BULL EXISTS,
>to also assume you know where it frequents, how to avoid being attacked by
>it, etc.

There you go, redefining others' terms again.  It really is a bad
habit that you should try and shake.

The assumption in question was not THAT A PIT BULL EXISTS, it
was that MY NEIGHBOUR'S PIT BULL IS IN EITHER THE HOUSE OR THE YARD.
Maybe you should find the original post and read it again.  So, yes,
I do know where it frequents, and it is intuitively obvious how I can
avoid being attacked by it.

>>Note the capital 'G', the use of "eternal soul", and the implication that
>>unbelievers are punished.  Note also Pascal's cultural background.  He was
>>obviously talking about the Judeo-Christian God.
>
>You mean the Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Greco-mumble God;

I would accept that Pascal was talking about the Islamic God, if he
came from a Muslim country and premise (1) read: "One does not know
whether Allah exists."  However, you can interpret the wager in an
Islamic context if you like, since Allah and God share most of the
qualities important to the wager.

Greco-mumble God?  What exactly is a Greco God?  Zeus?  Sorry, the
ancient Greeks were mortals, and were not concerned for the welfare of
their "eternal souls".

>his argument applies
>to many gods that get peeved if you don't believe in it.  If he were merely
>arguing about the Christian god, why wouldn't he mention belief in Jesus,
>(which is also essential)?

1) Jesus == God.
2) Following the teachings of Jesus (or Mohammed) is a consequence of
   accepting the wager, and is not part of the wager itself.
3) The wager does not address the issue of the Messiah, only that of the
   Deity.
4) Numerous closely related religions all agree on who God is and what
   He did, but disagree on who the Messiah is.
5) The truth of Jesus's teachings depend on the existence of God;  before
   it can be established whether it is in one's best interests to follow
   Jesus, one should first decide whether it is in one's best interests to
   believe in God.

There are certainly other reasons.  Take your pick.

>>Note that God is capitalized, and is thus a proper noun, referring 
>>to not just any god, but a specific God.
>
>No, it doesn't.  It applies to the god of the Jews (who has no children),
>the god of the Christians (who has a son), the god of the Muslims (no
>children again, but more prophets),

These gods are all variants of each other, to the extent that there is
significant amounts of overlap in the mythologies of each of these
religions.  To some extent, they are the same God (witness the identity
of the creation myths and significant personalities such as Moses in these
various religions).

>the God of Spinoza (who is not humanoid), etc.

I find it strange that you do not capitalize the Judeo-Christian-Islamic
"god", a being with a definite identity and personality for whom the term
is used as a personal name, and yet you do capitalize Spinoza's god, who
has no name or possibly even individuality.  This indicates to me that you
are a sloppy reader, sloppy typist, or sloppy thinker.  Whichever it is,
further discussion on this topic seems kind of pointless.

>>Let me replace Him with Thor, just
>>for now.  I claim that Norse mythology is the only reliable source of 
>>knowledge about Thor, and it says that he is the god of thunder.  You claim 
>>that I am full of shit, Thor might be the Fijian goddess of meat pies.
>
>Let's replace "Thor" with "God of thunder" and you'll get different opinions.
>You seem to think your Christian god has sole rights to the name "God" [TM].
>Sorry, nope.

(1)  That would be "god of thunder", not "God of thunder".  This is a
difficult concept for you, isn't it?

(2)  *My* Christian God?  Where did you get the idea that I'm talking
about *my* anything?  This is *Pascal's* God we're talking about, Merlyn!

(3)  The Judeo-Christian deity does have a pretty strong claim to the
*name* "God" (different from the classification of "god").  Most gods do
have names.  It's not my fault that Christians like to name theirs "God"
instead of something a little more distinctive.  It's sort of like naming
your pet "Dog".  While the neighbour's pet is also a dog, its name is
"Fido".  Both are dogs, but only one has the name "Dog".  It is certainly
possible that someone else will also have a pet named "Dog", in which case
we must judge from the context which is being referred to.  As long as the
reference is to "Dog" and not "dog", however, we know that a specific pet
is being referenced, and not all possible dogs.  (Then again, maybe its all
a clever mind-trick that causes Christians to involuntarily reject all
other gods without thought.)

(4)  It would be nice if there were more to distinguish "god" from
"God" than the case of a single letter.  I suppose we could use "YHVH"
or "Jehovah" instead, but that's a bit pedantic.  Most people
understand the reference after it is pointed out to them.  Most people
don't pause at every second line of the Bible, thinking:  "There they go
mentioning God again!  Which god do they mean this time?  Is it the same
god as in the last verse?  This whole religion thing is sooooo confusing!"

(5)  What *should* I assume a Christian is talking about when he starts
spouting off about capital-G God?

>>Attempting to claim that Thor was the Figian goddess of meat pies will not
>>go over very well with scholars in comparative religions, archaeology, 
>>history, or various other fields, all of whom value accuracy.  At best you 
>>would be laughed at, at worst, dragged off by the men in white coats.
>
>And which of us is being laughed at in alt.atheism?

Not sure, but the evasiveness of your question is pretty funny.

>>If god Y is defined by lore Y, then the existence of 
>>god Y means lore Y is accurate.
>
>This is such a boneheaded assertion --
>

"boneheaded assertion"?  Your arguments are getting more lucid by
the day, Merlyn.  The use of "--" in place of rational discourse is
especially effective.

>What if lore Y is accurate, except an event described as happening at
>9:07 EST is corrected (by Lore Y's God's pronouncement) as actually
>happening at 9:08 EST (the witness's watch was slow)?  Does this mean
>the God of Lore Y doesn't exist, or just that the lore isn't 100%
>accurate?

If that is the only discrepancy in a volume of lore the size of
Christianity's, I would personally describe the lore as pretty damned
accurate.  Your sudden insistence on "100% accuracy" in place of what
was simply "accuracy" a paragraph earlier is yet another example of you
re-defining terms on the fly.  It's getting annoying, frankly.

-- Morgan Burke (morgan@reg.triumf.ca)