Coming to know God
Beth Christy
[G'head, eat me, I love it]
From: p...@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman), Message-ID: <3...@pyuxn.UUCP>:
>Well, Rick, if asking who created
>God is a ``difficult question,'' may I ask what is ``difficult'' about it?
>Aren't you building difficulty into the question by making the assumption
>that God ``exists eternally''? (In whose timeline?) Isn't the only
>difficulty in the question your assumption about the nature of God,
>that He is the ultimate creator?
No, the only difficulty is not an assumption about the *nature* of
God. The real difficulty is the assumption about the *existence* of
God. Saying that *if* God exists, then he "was created as a part of
the universe" could be a reasonable theory. But why do you think God
exists at all? Because sometimes when you take your umbrella with
you it doesn't rain, and sometimes when you forget it it does rain?
Not exactly bullet-proof evidence there.
>Why bother to build systems of excuses for God?
Um, well why bother to build systems of excuses for entropy?
> Christ IS the Antichrist. He is a lie perpetuated by an evil
>Damager-God. Look at which religious force has been in total power over
>most of the Western world for most of the last two thousand years. Look
>at the amount of torture, death, and all-round evil done in its name.
"Done in its [christianity's] name" is *not* the same thing as doing the
will of Christ/God. Christ *never, ever, ever* advocated persecution, and
doubtless would abhor a great many things that have been/are being done
"in His name" (assuming he exists as described in the Bible, of course).
> Rick also claimed that my discounting of his examples of ``God's''
>miracles was unfounded. The first example he gave was Sarah's childbirth.
>Think about it, Rick. Who would have been standing there in her way
>preventing her from having a child in the first place? Through that
>force of entropy? Women give birth to children late in life all the time,
>and that is part of the natural course of nature. How old was Sarah when
>she had this child?
I seem to recall she was in her eighties. Are you telling us that women
give birth in their eighties "all the time"?
>Where did that information come from? How do you know
>that she was in fact ``too old?'' The same thing is true for the experiences
>of the Isrealites in battle. Generals throughout history have made their
>battle stories seem larger than life. Certainly it's in God's interest for
>Him to pass down the story that it was His action that saved the people, not
>their own fortitude. Who wrote down and passed down what the Jews believed
>about God bringing them victory? Or did he simply deceive them the way He
>is still deceiving you today? The Old Testament is just as full of God's
>lies as the New.
So you're telling us that the Bible is chock fulla lies, and we shouldn't
be deceived by it. Then apparently you're intentionally attempting to
deceive us when you quote Job's experiences and other Biblical events as
"evidence" for the evil nature of God. Whatever make you think God's
claims to have inflicted pain and suffering are any more true than his
claims to have relieved them? If anything in there is a lie, then it's
*all* suspect. God might just be claiming responsibility for any old
thing, 'cause he wants to impress us with power he doesn't have. He
might not be doing *any* of it. G'head, prove he wiped out Sodom and
Gomorrah. *Assuming* he exists, prove he has any power at all.
>The forces of nature in the universe itself itself are certainly
>neutral, they are associated with neither good nor evil.
Well, not exactly. A gentle, steady rain on an all-but-parched farm is
associated with good, and a hurricane is often considered evil. Both are
products of natural forces. As are birth (creation) and death (decay, or
entropy if you prefer). No need for supernatural intervention anywhere.
>We human beings seek to build things, [...]
Heh, heh, heh. Hunters who think it's "sporting" to just plain kill
animals are actually busy seeking to build things. So was "Son of Sam".
Right. Hitler really *was* seeking to build things. So was Jim Jones.
Pretty shining examples of a fine human tendency that a damager-god
would *surely* want to eradicate [read, of course, with heavy sarcasm].
> Rick, why on Earth should I not say that it was God's fault that
>Charles Manson and other disturbed people engage in evil actions? Is the
>human mind naturally disturbed? What possible explanation could there be
>for such mental disturbances except for a damaging entropic force from a
>vile and evil God?
How about an entirely natural entropic force? Or maybe adverse reactions
to the radiation that naturally showers the earth? Or maybe chemical
reactions to poisons that *humans* have polluted the environment with?
Invoking the supernatural is entirely uncalled for until *absolutely
everything* else has been thoroughly disproven. I.e., until never.
>Which of us is eroneously placing the blame on
>``something else?'' Is it me, when I say ``the Damager-God is to blame?''
Yes.
>Or is it you, when you say ``people are to blame?'' How can people be
>blamed for things that they cannot control? Certainly the Damager-God has
>control over such things, and certainly He takes control whenever it suits
>His whims, to wreak havoc on all of us for His pleasure.
As mentioned above, you have yet to demonstrate that "certainly the
Damager-God has control over such things", let alone that he even exists.
>The real
>question is which of us is making the assumptions? Are you and Dan and
>your fellow Christians (and other God whorshipers) making an assumption
>about the nature of God, assuming that He is all powerful and good? Or
>am I, when I conclude from the evidence of the Bible, the sciences, and
>the world around us, that God most certainly exists and is a flaming
>asshole of ridiculous (if not infinite) proportions?
You *both* are.
>There are examples
>in the Bible (of the God who hardened Pharaoh's heart to increase His own
>glory and who molested and harmed Job just to prove His own power).
You yourself say the Bible is full of lies intended to deceive us. I
don't see any particular reason to believe the parts you mentioned any
more than the parts where God claims to have created the heavens and
the earth.
>There
>are examples in scientific knowledge (of the natural flow of nature and
>how some willful force is clearly interfering with it and damaging it).
Like when *humans* willfully kill off entire species so they can get
feathers for hats, or cheap blubber, or fur coats. Not God, HUMANS
willfully interfering and damaging "the natural flow of nature".
>There are examples in everyday life (Murphy's law, and my umbrella
>example).
As I mentioned in a previous article, Murphy's law isn't true. There are
about a billion things that *could* have gone wrong in just the last ten
minutes that didn't. Your umbrella example isn't true either. I haven't
had an umbrella along for two weeks now, and it hasn't rained once.
>And all of these point unequivocally to the presence of an evil
>Damager-God, if you evaluate them in tandem.
All of these point to a willingness to interpret things in the light of
*assumptions*. A lot like the people you're trying to "enlighten".
--
--JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth)
"Oh yeah, P.S.,
I...I feel...feel like...I am
in a burning building
And I gotta go." (Laurie Anderson)
David S. Green
>>of the Isrealites in battle. Generals throughout history have made their
>>battle stories seem larger than life. Certainly it's in God's interest for
>>Him to pass down the story that it was His action that saved the people, not
>>their own fortitude. Who wrote down and passed down what the Jews believed
>>about God bringing them victory? Or did he simply deceive them the way He
>>is still deceiving you today? The Old Testament is just as full of God's
>>lies as the New
battle. Seems that Israel's generals have had a super record in battle
since 1948, as reported in the New York Times. I think
it is quite remarkable that shortly after six million Old Testament worshippers
were killed by one madman, a new nation was born. Makes me think that someone
up there has a hand in it!
Perhaps someday in the future, skeptics will
question if six million were actually killed and also the heroism of the
20th century Israeli Army - but only if all of this is recorded in one
sanctioned book. I better get my pen ready now.
David "Ezra" Green
Yosi Hoshen
presening his case against god. It is quite clear that Paul does
not understand this term. The following are some example of his
ludicrous claims:
> Or by the atheists, who also assume
> that entropy is ``just another force of nature that we can't fully
> explain,'' even though its behavior is certainly that of a willful
> evil entity, deliberately destroying the hard work of man. You say
> ``Why bother to build systems of excuses for entropy?'' I am doing
> just the opposite. I am saying that there is no ``excuse'' for entropy,
> that its results are certainly the actions of an evil Damager-God.
>
> We know there
> was some sort of flood that virtually wiped out life on Earth. What
> was it that did all these things? Entropy? Or some heinous willful force?
>
> Death occurs as a
> result of decay, of entropy. Why are hurricanes and death and decay clearly
> different from normal natural forces? They are the products of an obvious
> willful force working AGAINST nature! The God whorshipers claim that it is
> these entropic things that are part of the natural flow, while the good
>
> that the
> imbalance between the ``good'' natural forces of nature and the ``evil''
> destructive forces of entropy is ``just the way things are.'' (``It's
> easier to destroy things than to build them up.'')
Paul, I suggest that you do some studying in thermodynamics and
in statistical thermodynamics, before using entropy as a buzzword
for evil. If you don't know of any good book on this subject, I
will be happy to recommand one in email.
--
Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories
Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
Richard Carnes
>You make the Bible
>sound like an issue of the ``Star'' or the ``World Weekly News,'' with
>headlines about women giving birth in old age.
But it is. The Scriptures were the National Enquirer of the ancient
Hebrews:
BURNING BUSH TALKS TO MOSES! SCIENTISTS BAFFLED AS BUSH
BURNS YET IS NOT CONSUMED!
UFO VISITS WILDERNESS, LEAVES BEHIND EDIBLE "MANNA"! LOOKED
LIKE PILLAR OF FIRE, SAY AMAZED ISRAELITES!
SECRET OF SUPERHUMAN STRENGTH REVEALED! SAMSON GROWS HAIR,
DESTROYS BUILDING!
SHOCKING SEX SCANDAL! DAVID HAS AFFAIR WITH MARRIED WOMAN,
HIS PRIEST SAYS "THOU ART THE MAN!"
MAN CURES LEPROSY WITH SUPERNATURAL POWERS!
etc. etc.
Richard Carnes
Rich Rosen
>>sound like an issue of the ``Star'' or the ``World Weekly News,'' with
> But it is. The Scriptures were the National Enquirer of the ancient Hebrews:
>
> BURNING BUSH TALKS TO MOSES! SCIENTISTS BAFFLED AS BUSH
> BURNS YET IS NOT CONSUMED! [CARNES]
Which scientists? :-)
> UFO VISITS WILDERNESS, LEAVES BEHIND EDIBLE "MANNA"! LOOKED
> LIKE PILLAR OF FIRE, SAY AMAZED ISRAELITES!
>
> SECRET OF SUPERHUMAN STRENGTH REVEALED! SAMSON GROWS HAIR,
> DESTROYS BUILDING!
>
> SHOCKING SEX SCANDAL! DAVID HAS AFFAIR WITH MARRIED WOMAN,
> HIS PRIEST SAYS "THOU ART THE MAN!"
>
> MAN CURES LEPROSY WITH SUPERNATURAL POWERS! ... ... ...
I think this says it all. Will the great religion of 2000 years from now
be "Enquirism", with the holy trilogy: The Star, The Globe, and the Weekly
World News? "Believe in the printed word, and ye shall be saved. They
couldn't print it if it weren't true. Amen." Or is there already a religion
just like this in existence today? Or, on the third hand, do religionists
in general believe what they read in the National Enquirer in much the same
way that they believe other things? I doubt that all or even most do, they
have more common sense than that. So why the difference? (Or am I wrong?)
Might I recommend Hofstadter's "World Views in Collision: Skeptical Inquirer
vs. National Enquirer", which can be found in his new book "Metamagical Themas"
(and also in his column of the same name in the Feb. 1982 issue of Scientific
American)? In it, he sheds some light on what factual reliability might be: is
the National Enquirer's sensationalist tone alone evidence of its shoddiness,
or could the somber serious mood of the Skeptical Inquirer be a coverup for
ITS shoddiness? Is the use of terms like "SCIENTISTS BAFFLED" designed to
attempt to lend both credibiility ("Scientists looked at this and were
baffled!") ot INcredibility (just read the tone of the rest of the headline).
How do we tell what's what? What is "common sense" and how is it layered upon
itself (and how "meta-common-sense" is applied to know how to apply common
sense) to form what we now know as the body of scientific knowledge?
Hofstadter brings up Velikovsky a bit as an example, in discussing a "sister"
organization to CSICOP (the organization that publishes Skeptical Inquirer)
that split from the original organization, as well as what being "too open
minded" might mean: how far do you go to bend over backwards to give "the
benefit of the doubt" to a wishful thinking notion and its proponents before
not waiting anymore to hear some substantive support for it? (That sister
organization, CSAR, apparently tries to be "non-judgmental" (relativist) while
CSICOP & the Skeptical Inquirer tend to be "more firmly opposed to nonsense".)
The essay should be required reading for anyone who would presume the veracity
of wishful thinking beliefs (immediately followed by a viewing of "Monty
Python's Life of Brian").
(What's that? You won't read it based on my recommendation alone? Good.
That's why I included a summary of the substance of the essay and the sorts of
things I got out of it, in my own words. I hope it offers a good picture of
what it's all about, and why it's relevant. I hope you understand, Richard.)
--
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Ozan Yigit
>
>Might I recommend Hofstadter's "World Views in Collision: Skeptical Inquirer
>vs. National Enquirer", which can be found in his new book "Metamagical Themas"
>(and also in his column of the same name in the Feb. 1982 issue of Scientific
>The essay should be required reading for anyone who would presume the veracity
>of wishful thinking beliefs (immediately followed by a viewing of "Monty
>Python's Life of Brian").
>
be made into a required reading in highschools !! (That way,
we could save a lot of young minds..)
Oz
--
Usenet: [decvax|allegra|linus|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz
Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti]
You see things; and you say "WHY?"
But I dream things that never were;
and say "WHY NOT?"
G. Bernard Shaw (Back to Methuselah)
Beth Christy
[I've been working on a reply to this article (and understanding your
position a little better, Paul), but they're gonna shut down our machine
for a couple of days, so I'll just post this much and follow with the
rest next week.]
From: p...@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman), Message-ID: <3...@pyuxn.UUCP>:
> I am a little shocked at the degree of abusiveness towards my
>position that I find in your article. It was somewhat unexpected,
>considering the nature of your original article about maltheism, which
>seems to express (misplaced) concern rather than anger.
I apologize sincerely - I did not intend to be abusive, and I certainly
feel no anger whatsoever towards you. On the contrary, I'm enjoying
your articles a great deal. I appreciate your proposition of a totally
different interpretation of both the bible and current real-world
occurences - I enjoy the process of developing logical models of life,
the universe and everything, and I'm glad to have a chance to work on
one with you. But I do think your model needs work. I see some (what I
consider to be) serious holes in it, and I guess I got a little over-
zealous in pointing them out. I apologize, and if I do it again, please
remember that I don't mean it personally at all. (BTW, I Was initially
concerned for you, but you said you're doing ok so I'm taking your word
for it).
If anyone wants to skip the whole rest of the article, I think I can
summarize my complaints pretty quickly. Your model rests on 3 assump-
tions: 1) that a god exists; 2) that said god has enough power to affect
nature (and people too, I think) according to its will; and 3) that all
creative forces, and ONLY creative forces, are natural. I have two
objections: 1) I oppose your claims that your model rests on NO assump-
tions, i.e. that everything I just stated can be derived from observable
evidence by logic alone; and 2) I think assumption 3 is just plain wrong
- I believe that death is as natural as birth and that hurricanes are as
natural as gentler rains.
[The whole rest of the article will follow sometime next week (I hope).]
Take care.
--
--JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth)
"What if the after-effect of the terrible bomb is unusual beyond belief?
Wouldn't you rather the whole population had listened to somebody like
the old Indian chief?" (The Roches)
Dave Esan
> question if six million were actually killed
Someday??
The Center for Historical Review and the entire network of Klan/Neo-Nazi/
Identity Church people today deny that the six million died.
Shana Tova
David Esan
(ritcv!moscom!de)
David Sherman
>> Perhaps someday in the future, skeptics will
>> question if six million were actually killed
>
>Someday??
>
>The Center for Historical Review and the entire network of Klan/Neo-Nazi/
>Identity Church people today deny that the six million died.
A character named Don Black has been doing exactly that recently
on net.politics. See my article
From: da...@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Weisenthal's Fables
Message-ID: <7...@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: 18 Sep 85 22:40:09 GMT
Lines: 114
if you're interested.
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
{ ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave