From: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Before you reply to Re: THE DIVINE MAS
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:44:36 GMT

In article 1@cubldr.colorado.edu, miller_jh@cubldr.colorado.edu () writes:
>
>In article <BxMnFo.A24@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v462etnn@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (David L Anderson) writes:
>> In article <BxMI8B.6xB@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes...
>>>Before replying to McElwaine's post, check this posting on t.r.m. out.  I
>>>strongly doubt he's for real.  (Either that, or the acid just hit.) 
>>> 
>>>Once again, more evidence for state-sponsored Lithium handouts:
>>> 
>>>In:<1992Nov11.205728.2285@cnsvax.uwec.edu>
>>>>                          CONTRADICTIONS about God
>> 
>> [much wacko stuff deleted]
>> 
>>>>                                   Robert E. McElwaine
>>>>                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
>>                                      ^^^^^^^^
>> Maybe they gave him the degree to get him off their campus!
>> I wonder if it could be revoked for severe loss of rational
>> logic.  Then again, maybe the acid did just hit.
>> 
>> David Anderson
>
>
>
>//////O.K., A LOT OF GOOD SEMI-STUFF HERE, AND AT THIS POINT NOT EVEN A CLEARLY
>DEFINED SET OF PARAMETERS AS TO OUR DISCUSSION/DEBATE.

Semi-stuff? I like it already! :)

PS DO STOP SHOUTING IT HURTS MY (metaphorical) EARS THANX!

>ON SUCH A PLATFORM OF
>QUICKSAND WE CAN SURELY DANCE TILL WE DROWN!

Heh heh. We can argue ourselves in circles and get nowhere, 'tis true.
So?

>I'M JUST VAGUELY RECALLING SOME OF YOUR POINTS SO IF I HIT OR MISS, WATCH YOUR
>BATTLESHIP!

Uh uh... now where'd I put that pesky battleship?

>ARE YOU GRANTING AN EXISTENCE TO SPIRIT OR SOUL?

Well, Im not..

> IN SOME OF YOUR ARGUMENTS YOU SEEMED TO SUGGEST IT,

These arguments have been deleted, alas. I dont know if
they suggest it or not.

> WHICH IS THE CRUX I THINK OF THE WHOLE 'THEIST/A-THEIST'
>ARGUMENT.

I disagree; the theist/atheist argument is about God(s); there
is no reason you can't have spirits wo/ God. Unless you define
spirits AS God, which is not imho very reasonable.

> IF SPIRIT AND/OR EXTRA-MATERIAL MANIFESTATIONS ARE GRANTED THEN "WE"
>ARE 'MERELY' ARGUING ABOUT THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF "GOD" (ADMITTEDLY AN
>ARGUMENT THAT HAS SET MANY, MANY THEISTS AT ONE ANOTHER IN SENDING EACH OFF TO
>THEIR RESPECTIVE HEAVENS AND "OUR" RESPECTIVE HELLS!) 

:) But who is admitting that? In case spirit manifestations do NOT
necessarily imply the existance of God. Or much of anything else.

>IF NOT, THEN COMES THE "FUN"....

Oh goodie! :)

>I SUGGESTED THE NUETRINO AS AN EXAMPLE OF A 'REAL' PARTICLE THAT VIRSTUALLY
>"ISN'T"!

And I disagree with it on the grounds that a neutrino is a perfectly
good particle (wavicle, whatever), as much so as any other.

> I WILL EXPAND THAT FURTHER AS AN INDICATION AS TO WHY A PHYSICAL
>'PROOF' OF SPIRIT MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE, AND THAT ON THOSE GROUNDS A 'DISPROOF' IS
>ULTIMATELY FUTILE.

I agree that in the abstract a disproof of God is futile, due to "God"
beind defined too vaguely.

> (BESIDES, "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE"; 'DEEP
>THOUGHT' MAY GIVE US GOD'S PHONE NUMBER, BUT HE CAN'T SAY "HE AIN'T SO", ONLY
>THAT "I DON'T KNOW!")

:) Its possible to prove a negative. [insert usually disproof of square
circles and rebuttels. :) ]

It just doesn't apply to this debate.

>ANYWHO, THE NUETRINO WAS FAR FROM 'PROVEN' FOR ALMOST 4 DECADES.

Yes.. so...

> OF THE 4
>KNOWN FORCES OF NATURE IT INTERACTS ONLY THROUGH THE WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE, MAKING
>IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DETECT. (QUADRILLIONS PASS BEFORE ONE INTERACTS)

One's enough, from my understanding of the experiment.

> MY
>EXAMPLE THEREFOR IS THAT BASICALLY ONLY THINGS OF "LIKE SUBSTANCE" INTERACT
>AND/OR ARE DETECTABLE.

??? Where did THIS come from?

> IF SPIRIT is AN ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT "ELEMENT" THEN
>WHAT WE CALL "MATERIAL" (WHICH, FACE IT! IS 99.999998% 'EMPTY' SPACE!) THE
>'FACT' THAT IT CAN'T BE DETECTED OR PROVEN PHYSICALLY IS LESS THEN >MEANINGLESS.

I think I see what you are saying- spirits and mater do not interact,
therefore it is not possible for material things (our equipment)
to detect them. BUT this renders spirits ENTIRELY extraenous! You can
simple clip them out of your worldview and nothing changes! This
makes them rather useless imho. In any case they could hardly be
considered to represent 'us' in any sence, since we are clearly
at least PARTLY matter (we got bodies); if "spirit" and "matter" can't
interact, our spirit could not direct our body. Which would have
to make do with nothing more than a nervous system. :)

In this scenario its not possible to disprove the existance of spirits,
but it is useless to presume their existance as, even if they were real,
it would mean nothing.

>E.G.; "I PUT OUT 10,000 ICE CREAM ONES AND NO NUETRINOS WERE STUCK IN THEM,
>THEREFOR NUETRINOS DON'T EXIST" WOULD BE MEANINGLESS.

Ice cream is NEVER meaningless! Blasphemer! :)

> WITH SPIRIT THERE MAY NOT
>EVEN BE THE "ENERGY DEFICIT" THAT 'REQUIRED NUETRINOS TO BE INVENTED TO
>EXPLAINIT. (A BIT OF CIRCULAR LOGIC ON THE PART OF FERMI AND DIRAC, BUT THEY
> DID WIND UP BEING "RIGHT") 

Huh? Its not circular.. they were doing nuclear type reactions (pardon
me for being vague as hell) and they weren't getting as much 'stuff'
out as was going in. This violates the usual conservation laws, so they
postulated that there must be SOMETHING ELSE coming out that they were
not detecting. And somebody went out and tried to prove this postulate
by trying to detect the 'neutrino'- and succeeded.

What's circular about that?

>PRESSING THIS 'POINT' FURTHER I WOULD THEREFOR POSTULATE THAT SPIRIT IS
>DETECTABLE ONLY BY SPIRIT,

In which case our bodies would not be affected by our spirits
(and hence calling them "ours" is pretty silly)

> AND THE EVIDENCE AND PROOF REQUIRED WOULD HAVE TO BE
>'ANECDOTAL' SINCE ONLY EACH INDIVIDUALS SPIRIT IN HIMSELF COULD DETECT SPIRIT
>AT ALL!

No, in this case you would not have a spirit- it may exist, but it
would be "connected" with out- it couldn't interact with your body.

> (HERE "BELIEF" WOULD BE ALL, WOULDN'T IT? SINCE ONE CAN HARDLY ACCEPT
>EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING THEY ARE CERTAIN DOESN'T EXIST EVEN IF THEY THEMSELVES
>ARE THE PROOF)

What you mean by this?

> IN THAT VEIN IS WHY AND WHERE I POSTULATE THE "GOD INSTINCT" AS
>AN INDICATOR THAT MAYHAPS THERE does EXIST A SPIRIT/GOD/SUPER-MATERIAL
>MANIFESTATION IN A GREATER REALITY.

This would also be inconsistant with your postulate of a noninteracting
spirit world.

> I.E.; THE INSTINCT FOR HUNGER IS SUPPORTED
>BY THE EXISTENCE OF REAL FOOD. THE INSTINCT FOR SEX IS SUPPORTED BY THINGS TO
>FUCK.

How well you put that. :)

> THEREFOR AN "INSTINCT FOR GOD" STRONGLY IMPLIES THAT THERE MAY BE AN
>OBJECTIVE "GOD" IT ADDRESSES.

Perhaps the instinct for God is supported by Things to Pray For. (ie,
suffering in the world)

> THAT THERE ARE 9 BILLION NAMES FOR GOD ISN'T AS
>IMPORTANT AS THE 'FACT' THAT GOD IS NAMED at all. (THERE ARE 9 BILLION THINGS
>TO EAT AS WELL, SOME DELICIOUS AND SOME GROSS DEPENDING ON OUR SENSITIVITIES,
>BUT ALL REAL, AND ALL 'FOOD' NONETHELESS)

:) Yes.. its the 9 Billion Names of Spam.

>THAT THIS 'INSTINCT' IN TURN EXISTS IS SUPPORTED BY THE REALITY THAT NO HUMAN
>CULTURE IS WITHOUT some CONCEPT OF GOD/SPIRIT/EXTRA-MATERIAL MANIFESTATIONS OF
>'REALITY'.

You've made this argument before. I hope you added something to it.

In any case, you assume that the reason has something to do with God.
I propose that this is not necessarily true.

> IF SOME OTHER 'INSTINCT' OR COMBINATION OF INNATE HUMAN TRAITS WERE
>OPERATING HERE THERE WOULD BE/SHOULD BE MANY CULTURES WITHOUT any SUCH
>CONCEPTS, INSEAD OF all CULTURES.

Nobody is proposing that there is NO reason for this superstition thing.
But there are numerous cultures where their metaphysical ideas are
not at all like your mondern monotheism.

> (WHY DEVELOP A CONCEPT INVOKING INVISIbLE,
>UNVERIFIABLE ASPECTS TO 'EXPLAIN THE UNKNOWN' UNLESS THAT INVIIBLE,
>UNVERIFIABLE ASPECT is THE INSTINCT?

If its invisible and unverifiable, why should we clutter up our belief
systems with it? If it is undetectable, how would Joe Neandertal know
about it? (incidentally, technically I dont see this exactly
as an instinct, more of a tendancy)

> INDEED, COMFORT AND EXPLANATION ALONE
>SEEM INSUFFICIENT SINCE MANY RELIGIONS ARE FAR FROM COMFORTABLE AND THEIR
>EXPLANATIONS FAR FROM SIMPLE.    

This may only be part of the explaination. In any case, those that
provide a life-after death serve the purpose of avoiding "death";
they need not provide a paradise to do this (Although some do). The
simplicity  of the explainations is not relevant.

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism