HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Blind Watchmaker...
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:01:29 GMT

(Brian Colfer) writes:
>>>Graham lets push it even father ... if you say that the wonderous
>>>nature of humans is a testimony to the existence of a creator then if
>>>you think that the creator is wonderous then that must be a 
>>>testimony that the creator has a creator... and if the creator's
>>>creator is wonderous... ad infinitum...
Graham:
>>The problem I have with this refutation of the argument from design
>>is that it assumes that causality holds everywhere in space and time.
>>I don't see why this assumption need be taken.
(Brian Colfer) writes:
>Is it arbirtrary to apply a proof by design to one set of
>circumstances but not to an identical or similar circumstance?  
>
>Or to rephrase the question...
>
>If I say nature is so wonderful then there must be a god and 
>by definition god is wonderful... then am consistent to if I do not
>apply the same standard to god?

Both applications of the proof by design are completely abritrary.
Whats the problem?

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:52:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.135930.1531@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
}In article <exukjb.17.712264926@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
}>
}> I would like to suggest that there is an argument, one very interesting 
}> argument in particular, which might be called the The Argument From the 
}> World's Intelligibility, that may be able to prove God's existence to any 
}> reasonable person [...]
}>
}> If anyone's interested in this seeing this argument laid out, let me know. 
}
}How about posting it, Ken?

Sounds like the "argument from design" that the "scientific creationists"
-hack patooie- like to spout.  Notice the inclusion of "any reasonable
person"?  i.e. if you don't agree with me you are not either reasonable or
a person.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Atheism vs. Christianity (WHY?)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 01:21:35 GMT

In article <l7gqk5INN6me@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
> Josh Adams writes:
>
> My biggest reason (well, I think biggest) for not believing in god is that
> there are so many religions out there who all believe they are right and
> everyone else is wrong (yes I know it's not exactly like that, but most
> religions contradict) so how can any one of them be right? You, well, we'll
>
>So what if most religions contradict?

Seems like a valid enough point to me.  If all religions contradict each
other, then at most one can be correct.  That means that somebody made
up all the others.  It seems very likely that they're all fabricated from
whole cloth and not worthy of serious consideration.  What's the problem
with that?

>No one said it was an easy subject.

In that case, I'll say it now: it is a far easier subject than most
religions would have you believe.

>Let's face it: people have been and will continue
>to ponder the very question of human existence as long as there
>are humans.

I think that almost all of the pondering that's been going on for the
past 2000 years is barking completely up the wrong tree.  If we ever
manage to restore sanity to the planet, words such as "god", "omnipotent",
"omniscient", "free will", "soul", etc. will no longer appear in the
dictionary.

>There are no easy answers no matter what fundamentalist
>tells you; just because one has conflicting theories about something,
>doesn't mean it isn't worth thinking/talkin about?

No, but this particular subject isn't worth thinking/talking about
for the same reason that we no longer debate about how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin.  It's just a waste of time, and contributes
nothing to new knowledge.  Furthermore, it diverts attention from the
real issues, and encourages a confused mode of thinking that is incapable
of providing answers to anything.  This confused thinking carries over
into all areas of our lives.

> Christians (randomly, of course) all think that Jesus is gonna come back
> or whatever, while the Jews say he won't. You are so set in your thinking
> that you don't realize that there are other possibilities than yours. So,
>
>And you don't realize that what you say isn't the case. Christians
>say the Christ has come, Jews say he has not. Some protestants
>aren't even christians to begin with (i.e., they do not generally
>believe Jesus was divine, but another "teacher").
>
>You may say this is besides the point, but I just wanted to
>point out that there are other possiblities than yours. .  ;-)

Yes, I did think it was beside the point.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: 02/alt.atheism fre <cont>
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:59:09 GMT

In article <graham.711589403@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>>   It's nice to know that he was fallible, like we all are.
>
>Perhaps its too early to call whether he was fallible or not?

I suspect it will turn out that Einstein was largely correct. Quantum
mechanics is seriously flawed. Unfortunitly most quantum people brush off
the problems with a theory of the universe where each particle requires
absurd amounts of computing power. I see no reason to believe that
the universe contains some monstrously huge hidden computer, by monstrously
huge I mean each particle requires trillions of trillions of ... more
computing power than that available "inside" the universe.

I expect to see a theory that makes the same predictions as quantum 
mechanics, but does so with only the computing power available to the
system in question, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if its deterministic
(but maybe so chaotic that determinism is meaningless).
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
From: mike@max.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Oh no, not again ( was Re: lighten up, people
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:23:15 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics

The student knowing the professor's choice of a test question is not a valid
analogy unless you say the student knew the question before the professor even
thought of it. If the student could do this then one could indeed question
whether the professor has "free will".

In my view, "free will" is not, and cannot, be well defined. Discussions about
will, necessarly go around in circles. One can only talk of conditions tend
to cause people to feel free. For example, in a sexist culture women may not
feel free to make certain choices.

Mike Sullivan, mike@math.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:31:41 GMT

(Robert Krawitz) writes:
>on "life", fractals and the Mandelbrot sets

(Ridha Souissi) writes:
>How do those things compare with the human brain, created by God,
>which invented these things in the first place?

This question cannot be answered as we do not know enough about
the brain to make comparisons. 

Note that our lack of knowledge of the brain does not necessarily 
indicate that the brain is super complex. It could indeed be very
simple but we have missed the simplicity.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Mensa )
Subject: lighten up, people
Summary: lighten up!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 06:55:00 GMT
Keywords: faith 

Hello to all:

	Well, tonight was the first time I have ever read this newsgroup, and I
have a few things to say:

	1) the idea of God is not illogical. I am a scientist (an astronomer),
	and I believe in God. I believe that He (or whatever pc pronoun you
	see fit to insert) created the Universe. BUT: I also believe 100% in
	the natural laws that control the Universe (ie Big Bang, Worm Holes,
	Black Holes, etc.) I am VERY interested in correspondance with someone
	who has a differing opinion on this.

	2) to believe in a God does not imply religiosity. Believing in a
	higher being does not mean that one is necessarily a relious person.
	For that matter, it does not even imply--if the person is religious--
	that he (I don't believe in pc, sorry) is a `religious freak'.

	3) God is not a person! I am Catholic (err, no comments please) and I
	do not believe that God is a person, per se. He (see above note) does
	not have a physical existence. He is a spirit of Love. One will
	never 'see God' in a physical sense, because that is simply not how
	He exists.
	
	4) the Bible (to me, at least) is not a literal work. Come on, people..
	who really believes that the Universe was created in SIX DAYS?!?! BUT:
	whereas it is not literal, it is not fiction, either. This may seem
	confusing, but I had it explained to me very well by the little-known
	author James Connor. The stories in the Bible are there to teach us
	how to live our lives.
	
	5) finally, LIGHTEN UP PEOPLE!!!! Geez. I mean, as if. People, people
	people.....there is one and only one way to prove the existence of
	God......




	If anyone wants to pursue these discussions any further, do not
hesitate to e-mail me, too. I am a VERY open-minded person, but I still
have not some across anything that explains things better that the 
existence of a God, whatever YOU may believe this God to be.



	In Nomine Patris et filiis et Spiritus Sancti....
	thomas ehardt
	tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: god violates physical
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:35:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.280.14286@execnet> "neal abrams" <neal.abrams@execnet.com> writes:
>SL>Ex:How does one determine if one has free will or not?
>SL>Perphaps some experiment?
>
>     What about the human ability to choose between right and wrong?

People are rewarded for doing right and punished for doing wrong, do
the same to an animal and it will have the ability...

>Animals don't appear to have such an ability, yet it's apparent that
>humans do.

I don't know about that...

>SL>It seems to me, that if this can't be done then all this talk of
>SL>'free will' is meaningless/moot.
>
>     What about the human ability to love?  Animals don't love nor do
>they have pride?  

How do you know? 
Why do you assume two animals can't love each other? 
Why will an animal be upset if an animal or person it loves is away?

>Can animals create?  

They are rather limited by the lack of tools, which is a consequence
of they way there hands are made not there brains.

>Do they have an imagination? 

I imagine they do :)

>In my opinion all these things add up to free will.

Then animals have free will.
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
From: khan@davidsys.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: free will
Date: 21 Jul 92 09:53:24 PST
Organization: DAVID Systems Inc, Sunnyvale CA

  Regarding the "free will" of Mary, the mother
of Prophet Jesus [pbuh], and why God did NOT ask
her "permission" before she became pregnant
by His command with the baby Jesus [pbuh]:

  Every creature and object in this universe
is the Creation of God, and God owns everything.
You and I, everything and all is owned by Him.
When the time comes, He will transfer us 
[cause "death"] from this dimension to another one.
And so with other things in our life.

  We are Creations of God. Fortunately, or `
'unfortunately', He gave us a consciousness
and a power in the human brain. When this brain
is not submitting to God, and praying to Him,
the brain becomes arrogant [I am, I will,
I say! etc.]. And so Hanlon asked the question
of God violating Mary's rights, etc. First,
you have to acknowledge your position with
respect to God, and then you will understand.
You are just a creature of God.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 13:30:15 GMT

mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>> >skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>> >> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>> >> >skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>> >> >> >But to get back to the point, am I to take it that you're claiming tha
>> >> >> >error-free transmission of God's word is incompatible with free will?
>>
>> >The claim quoted above concerns what is allowed by free will.  I'm asking yo
>> >what would be allowed given guaranteed accuracy of transmission of God's
>> >word.  Your answer does not relate to my question.
>> 
>> I agree that the second part of the answer relates only marginally.
>> My answer to your question is: No, I am not claiming that.

>"What would be allowed given guaranteed accuracy of transmission of God's
>word?"

>"No, I'm not claiming that."

I was re-answering the following query, whose context appears above.

>> >> >> >But to get back to the point, am I to take it that you're claiming tha
>> >> >> >error-free transmission of God's word is incompatible with free will?

My only answer to the new question is, "I don't know."

>Anyway, can I then take it that you do *not* claim that guaranteed accuracy
>of transmission of God's word is incompatible with free will?

Yes.

[I think this discussion is becoming muddled because it has gone on
for several weeks.  I will stop now, lest anyone be tempted to start a
"you said this" fighting match (mathew is not likely to do this, but
others are).  mathew is welcome to continue via email.]
--
Gregg Skinner  g-skinner@uiuc.edu   I do not speak for any organization.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:00:00 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Decision '92

If an atheist feels that promoting what we may imprecisely call the
interest of atheism is how he should decide to cast his ballot in a
presidental election, then the choice is very clear.
What is imporatant to atheism is a sane Supreme Court.  George Bush
cannot be trusted not to put another loon like Scalia or Thomas on the
Supreme Court.  If another loon is put on the SC then there is a very
real possiblity of state support of theism.
We can feel reasonably comfortable that a Clinton Justice will favor the
Constitution over the demands of the religionist.
Finally, remember that what is important in politics is the final
results.  Who cares if Clinton believes anything or not?  He certainly
will owe the religious right not if he is elected and he will owe their
opponents much.  I trust he will want to be reelected.

Michael
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Subject: my "religous experience"....
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 12:15:17 GMT


	What can I say about my religous experience....


	I was brought up lutheran, and found out that Martin Luther
once said...

	that Jews should have..."all their cash and jewels and silver
and gold"....and he then wanted "that their synagogues or
schools be set on fire, that their houses be broken up and destroyed
....and they be put under a roof or stable like the gypsies.....in
mysery and captivity as they incessantly lament to God about us"...




	Keep in mind that it was NOT Hitler who said it first, it
was the founder of the Lutheran Church, Martin Luther. Then I hear
that these religous fanatics, mostly chri$tian, want to stir up
homophobia and anti-gay bigotry, hell the vatican said recently that
it is ok to try to make laws that discriminate against people because
of their sexual orientation.....





	I was once a lutheran, but now I take a look at all of this 
and then hear of them say....


	"God loves you"....



	If this is love, I wonder what hate is !


	<pardon any typos>
-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries, reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias: White Rook     |   NWROC E-mail:aphillip@heartland.bradley.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Wowzers
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:01:01 GMT

In article <CINDY.92Jul27194311@solan10.solan.unit.no> cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:
}Nor does the fact that i don't understand how the universe works
}stop me from enjoying the beautiful things that i can find in it.

Nor does it drive me to make up a lie, either.  I can admire without
explaining.

I see no reason to make up a convenient self-serving explaination (a "god",
for instance) for something that requires no explaination.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Subject: Re: Extent of omniscience
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:12:34 GMT

(Brian Cash) writes:
>(Ekrem Saban) writes:
>|>>(dave budd) writes:
>|>
>|>God, however, is neither of matter (as the reason of His existence is
>|>He Himself, and as matter is created by Him), nor does He obey to any
>|>law: He is the Exalted in Power, the Irresistable, the Supreme. So,
>|>His power can't be cut by laws or anything else, and He needs nothing
>|>but Himself.  

I've got to say that the above paragraph loses it!  It's not an explanation,
it's an evasion!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 08:07:01 GMT

Jarek:
>In <graham.712134206@galois> Graham explains that he assumes, after the
>person he replies to, that the world exists and is well defined:
>I understand that for the sake of your comment("Why didn't God make the
>world as it is now?") you suspended your agnosticism and you asked your
>question from the point of view of someone who claims to KNOW the real
>'shape' of the world, no matter how weird his point of view may appear
>to you. It also follows that you accept, for the sake of argument, all
>definitions used by the person you talk to (the meaning of terms is an
>integral part of one's world view and you accept, though temporarily,
>this world view). Is my understanding correct? Do you always discuss in
>that way? If not always, then how can I tell what your current mode is?

I do indeed often discuss in this manner - it is called "trying to
understand someone else's position, trying to see things from the other
person's perspective". Do you have any problems with this. If you want 
to know what mode I am in then ask - novel idea that huh. Alternatively
follow the thread from the beginning and thus see what the initial
assumptions are, rather than just jumping in with some guess at
the assumptions. You might get some discussion out of people ...

Jarek:
>If I am correct, please explain how can you accuse anyone (say, me) of
>playing word games without showing that one equivocates or says things
>which are meaningless WITHIN his world view. I could understand such a
>behavior (psychologically) if you argued from YOUR point of view (then
>you could simply feel it intuitively and think that it is thus obvious)
>but I cannot understand it if you argue from someone ELSE's view point.

This is so trivial as to be almost obvious. I take the assumptions
of the other person and start trying to think like them. I then
discover some anomolies, some contradictions etc within their system
of thought. So I mention these. What is so difficult about that?
Some people I never find inconsistencies with because they have
beautifully argued positions. Others I find problems and they admit
that yeah they don't have all the answers, that there ideas may lack
something (this is the category I would put myself in). With you I
have the problem that I ask questions and you take them as personal
attacks rather than as me seeking to understand better.

graham

PS: Jarek please refrain from emailing me articles or replies. I do
not want them and I did not solicit them.
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Oh no, not again 
Organization: University of Alaska
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:50:43 GMT

In article <Bs6tKq.J98@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Mensa ) writes:
> 	Now I come to the free will concept. I totally understand the 
> notion that if God knows what we will do, are we really free to do it?
> Yes, we are. It is like this: now let's pretend that we know in advance that
> a professor is going to put a certain question on an exam. Somehow we have
> found out ahead of time--perhaps we have seen a copy of the exam, or maybe
> we have heard him/her talking to a colleague about it, or perhaps even we
> are just psychic. The point being that we know for a fact that this question
> is going to be on the exam. Now...this is just like God knowing what we are
> going to do, say, this Friday night at the bars. I ask to you all (and if
> you don't agree, please don't hesitate to let me know): isn't the professor
> perfectly free to put this question on the exam? Why does our knowing that it
> is going to be there make it imperative that it be there? I don't see how a
> prior knowledge of an a person's action strips that person of his/her free
> will. Maybe I just didn't get the point of everybody's criticism, either.
> 
> 
> 		keep thinking--it's what keeps us all sane
> 		thomas ehardt
> 		tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
> 

    Thomas:  I don't believe you've quite got the concept--after all, the
    professor _could_ change his mind, and you're omniscience would be
    shown to be not omni at all.  Try this one:

    There is a god and it's omniscient.  It knows past, present, future.

    Now, I believe that I can walk out my office door right now and freely
    choose to turn either left or right.  God knows already, say, that I
    will turn left.  Under what circumstances can I exercise my free will
    and turn right?

    Don 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism