Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re (part 6): Blast from the past
Message-ID: <706@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Feb-85 10:44:40 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.706
Posted: Mon Feb  4 10:44:40 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Feb-85 03:21:19 EST
References: <418@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 156

Part 6 of my response to the long article recently posted by Pesmard
Flurrmn (formerly known as Rich Rosen) to net.religion and
net.religion.christian (418@pyuxd.UUCP).

More reasons why people believe in God.

> >3.  Search for meaning.  I believe that God exists because, otherwise,
> >    human existence in general, and my life in particular, would be
> >    meaningless.  If there is no God, then there is no real purpose
> >    for my existence, and I want very much to believe that there is
> >    a purpose for my existence.

> It is wrong for me to say that no one should believe in god.

Then don't say it.  Stop calling people who do believe in God
mindless irrational, or immature, or fascist, or any of the other
terms which you use to indicate that you don't think people should
believe in God.

> Some people need this belief system or else they will feel either
> helpless or purposeless, and I think it does help for some people.

Condescending little creature, aren't you?  That woule be like me
expressing sympathy for you because you haven't come to know the
Creator.

> However, I also feel that such a belief is childish, in that it is
> based on a picture of the world that you *want* to see and not the
> way evidence shows it to be.

Again, the assumption that the belief is not true.

> Again, belief in one's self and in humanity would do just as well
> (if not better, because it eliminates the need to externalize one's
> dependencies).

Do you really consider yourself a completely independent person?
Did you build your own house with your own hands, using only those
tools you fashioned yourself from whatever raw materials you could
find?  Do you eat only the food grown on your own land?  Even if
you could answer all of the above questions affirmatively, you
did not create the raw materials, so you would still be dependent
on external factors.

> But, promotion of the belief that garys expounds here, that human
> life is meaningless without god, is repugnant, and smacks of
> mindlessness.

So far I am irrational, immature, childish, and now mindless.
Later on, Pesmard announced that I was also a fascist.

> My life, and the lives of many others, are very meaningful without
> any god, thank you.

Don't thank me, thank... (no I won't say it).

> [SOMEONE THOUGHT ENOUGH OF THAT LAST SENTENCE, I RECALL, TO SEND ME
>  A NOTE OF PRAISE FOR SAYING IT.

Since someone else praised you for it, does that constitute proof
by authority?  I also occassionally get notes encouraging me for
what I have said.

>  I WAS SAYING THE SAME THINGS THEN REGARDING WISHFUL
>  THINKING (THOUGH PERHAPS NOT AS WELL CODIFIED).  THEY HAVE STILL GONE
>  UNACKNOWLEDGED.]

FALSEHOOD!  Your statements about wishful thinking have been acknowledged
many times, by many people.  What you mean is that the answers did
not satisfy you.  To say that your statements were unacknowledged is
to say that they were ignored.  After I finish this series, I will
demonstrate the verb "ignore".

> >4.  Sufficient cause.  I believe that God exists because I do not
> >    believe that the material universe is self-sufficient.  The
> >    existence of thought is not sufficiently explained by purely
> >    random actions.

> This is based on the notion that "if we can't explain it, it's
> unexplainable", which somehow again leads to "there must be a god".
> This is a very anthropocentric point of view, that if humankind
> doesn't understand something, it is un-understandable.

It is also not what I said.  If the basis of thought is random
physical or chemical actions, then we can't claim that our thought
processes are correct; we can only claim that they're lucky.

> This anthropocentrism manifests itself, interestingly enough, in
> Judaeo-Christian thought (odd, wouldn't you think?), when it puts
> forth things like "god created the earth as the focal point of the universe,
> and created man as its ruling species".  This says a lot more about "man"
> than about "god".  My personal belief is that the universe is "explainable"
> and "understandable" in its entirety from a physicalist point of view, but
> that we may never have the knowledge or vantage point to do so.

So it is anthropocentric to believe that there are things which man
cannot explain with his science, but it is not anthropocentric to
claim that man can explain everything (eventually) with his science.

> [INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THIS RELATES BACK TO THE DEBATE WITH WINGATE OVER THE
>  DEFINITION OF "NATURAL" AND "SUPERNATURAL" (the realm that god is supposed to
>  be in).  THAT LAST SENTENCE ABOVE SOUNDS BOLD, UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND HOW
>  "PHYSICAL" IS DEFINED.  THE QUESTION IS:  IS PHYSICAL "THAT WHICH EXISTS",
>  SUCH THAT IF GOD EXISTS, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PHYSICAL IN NATURE BECAUSE
>  EXISTENCE IMPLIES PHYSICALITY?  OR IS PHYSICAL "THAT WHICH HUMANS CAN
>  OBSERVE", SUCH THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF NATURAL/PHYSICAL AND SUPERNATURAL/
>  NON-PHYSICAL ARE SOLELY BASED ON CURRENT BOUNDARIES OF HUMAN OBSERVATION?
>  IF SO, IS THIS ANYTHING BUT ARBITRARY?  IF YOU CLAIM IT MEANS "ALL THAT
>  HUMANS CAN *EVER* OBSERVE", BY WHAT BASIS DO YOU PREDETERMINE THAT BOUNDARY,
>  OR EVEN THAT THERE *IS* A BOUNDARY?]

Pesmard offers some really strange definitions of the term "physical."
The assumption suggested that "existence implies physicality" may be
Pesmard's; it certainly isn't mine.

> >5.  Conscience.  I believe that God exists because I have a sense
> >    of morality; that some actions are 'good' and some actions are
> >    'bad'.  I believe that this sense of morality has a basis in
> >    reality, and that if there were no God, there would be no sense
> >    of morality, or morality at all.

> I fail to see why this is so.  Maybe it's obvious to you, but if I
> were you I'd think twice about anything I thought was "obvious".

Apparently Pesmard saw the word "obvious" in the above paragraph.
I have condensed several arguments for the existence of God in a
few paragraphs, when whole books have been written about each
argument.  Because of this condensation, Pesmard thinks that I
am claiming that the arguments are "obvious."  Yes, I suppose that
if you were me you would think twice about anything I thought
was obvious, but since you are you, I guess you don't need to.

> Again, I think the notion of "one person's rights end where
> imposition on another person begins", which I feel to be a
> fundamental facet of humanist (or whatever) thought, sums it up.
> Apparently, so did Jesus, when he summed it all up in different
> words ("Do unto others...").

How interesting.  Earlier you had claimed that the humanist tenets
were developed without reference to any ancient scripture; how
nice to see that you admit that that was not so.

> I would think the notion of an organized religion the way Christianity
> is today (perhaps un-organized religion is a better phrase), where
> imposition of beliefs and laws from a book is the rule, would have
> Jesus spinning in his grave. (Maybe that's why god had him resurrected,
> to prevent his burning a hole in the ground :-)

I think this is called a red herring.  We were talking about whether
God exists, not (specifically) whether Christianity is the correct
way to learn about him, let alone whether most implementations of
Christianity are according to specification.

> [THAT WAS PROBABLY THE FIRST TIME I USED THAT JOKE.  AND MAYBE IT WAS THE
>  FIRST TIME I USED THE "ONE PERSON'S RIGHTS END ..." NOTION AS WELL.  BUT NOT
>  THE LAST. :-]