NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/philosop/objectiv/890

Text File | 1993-01-22 | 6.4 KB | 119 lines

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!ux4.cso.uiuc.edu!jlamb
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Richard Lamb)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:41:17 GMT
Lines: 107

[e-mail] (Rob McCool) writes:


>Sorry, Jeff, no flame, but I don't think your argument holds water. I'd have
>  talked to you in person but I'd like to keep the discussion open to everyone.

>Jeffrey Richard Lamb ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: True, lack of disproof <> proof, but failure to acknowledge strong evidence
>: is illogical. Also the closer you come to proving a whole the more credence
>: you should give the idea. The theory of relativity hasn't been proven, but
>: no evidence has come up against it and every test we have been able to
>: think of has supported the ideal. Why is acceptance of the Bible different.

>This example is not a good one. The THEORY of Relativity is just that: a
>  theory. It has not been proven, even though the tests we are currently
>  able to use show that it is true. However, there are a lot of holes in
>  the theory which are unknown, and they remain precisely that. Unknown.
>  To say that these holes must act how we expect them to is speculation
>  and inference, not fact or logic. If one of these holes is disproven,
>  another theory will come along. And it will be just that. A theory.

True. Let's rephrase. The problem here is with words being used too often.
You have to say that the word theory is given different weights depending on
the context. The Theory of relativity just seems to hold more weight than the
Peanut-butter-and-jelly-JFK-Human-Combustion theory. Just reading it, without
knowing what the theory says you make a judgement of the validity of the state-
ment. To avoid this I used the word proof, which holds a more serious meaning.
Maybe I should have used theory, but the problem is most people would judge
theory much more weakly than I am asserting. If you can think of a better word
then ok. Let me change proof to - "Logical reason why you should be at least
51% sure God exists." Is that better?

>Let's put it another way. Until the theory of quarks and leptons came along,
>  it was the current theory, as yet not disproved, that protons and electrons
>  were the smallest things in the universe, unbreakable particles of which
>  matter was composed. The theory was generally accepted, but not as a PROOF,
>  as a THEORY. Neils Bohr could have argued until his face was blue that
>  it was true, and no one could disprove him, but that doesn't mean he was
>  right. Logically, it was not truth yet, it was a guess which fit the
>  current facts.

Yet, it was logical to act like the theory of true. We could be 51% sure (or
more (or so we thought)). You have to decide if God exists or not. When given
this choice you have to look at the evidence and make a decision. It is il-
logical to choose something that you are 90% unsure of over something you are
90% sure of. So my "proof" was intended to convince you to be 51% sure. Then
it would be illogical for you to deny the existence of God until more inform-
ation came to you. There is very little in life you can say that I can't argue
with. The point is, if you can show that it is likely to be true, then I would
be foolish to reject that notion.

>But, you say, that is a bad example because blah blah blah....... Okay, then
>  let me bring up a concrete example.

>Moses disappeared on a mountain top for forty days and came back down
>  again with ten laws on stone tablets for the Isrealites. Moses claims
>  that a bush was afire (but not consumed), and God gave him the tablets.
>  We have no proof one way or the other if he was right or not. The facts we
>  have, in the Bible or elsewhere, just don't logically lead to the
>  conclusion that this must be the way it happened. Moses could have sat down
>  and written them himself for all we know. What happened up there is unknown,
>  and likely will never be.

As to the bush burning, Science has shown that bushes in that region do burn.
They secrete an oil that coats the leaves of the bush. When the sun heats the
oil to a certain temperature, it ignites. The oil doesn't burn very hot, but it
is fairly bright. The lack of heat keeps the bush itself from burning. (In fact
this burning helps the plant to spread it's seeds (which are carried into the
air by the rising smoke).
The other point is true. We can't be sure Moses did go up there and chisel
away at the rock. If fact the second set of tablets (one was destroyed when
he came down and saw all the children (read morons) of Israel running around
worshipping an idol) WAS carved by Moses (and Arron). It is one of the things
that we can't be sure about, but because it is part of the bible (#include
proof :-) ) . . . It would be illogical to mantain that is it wrong, and log-
ical to believe it to be true.

>There are other examples I will not get into right now, which I can bring
>  up if you like. Let me close by saying that your argument is based on a

Please bring them up.

>  faulty premise (the Bible must be completely factual since we can infer
>  the unknowns to be true due to lack of evidence to the contrary) and
>  therefore as it stands, your proof is not valid. If I am wrong, feel free
>  to correct me.

There is a difference between saying lack of evidence to the contary means
truth and what I have said. My main premise is that the Bible is an inter-
related work. So interreated that parts of it being true lead to the logical
result of believing the whole thing to be true. The part about lack of anti-
evidence :-) is just to show that everything we know points in one direction.
In this way, I made sure everyone knew I wasn't just picking out the parts
that suited my needs.

>BTW I'd suggest taking the class offered down here called "The Bible As
>  a Piece of Literature". You might find it interesting.

Thanks. BTW, for those of you that don't know. Rob is my suitemate. (Thus
the reference to talking to me in person.


--
H. Ross Perot | "How do you always manage to    | Jeff R. Lamb
for President | decide?"             | Midnight Arrow
of the United | "How do you let others decide   | Champion of Reality
States in '96 | for you?"       -Ayn Rand     | ([e-mail])