NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/philosop/objectiv/939

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-24 | 2.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!ucbvax!enterpoop.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!cmk
From: [e-mail] (Charles M Kozierok)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: LAST POST!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 93 23:38:23 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News system)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 42
Nntp-Posting-Host: vongole.mit.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:
>Unfortunately, (or as some would say, fortunately), I can't keep up with
>all these posts. I have college work to do after all. Because of this I
>am going to have to exit stage left. I have a couple more comebacks, but
>after those get posted I will be finished.
>I'd like to thank everyone who answered my post. It made me think. Some
>things made me want to do a little more research.
>As to changing my mind, I didn't see much encouragement in my views from
>you all, but I didn't expect any so that's no big deal. I have always
>held that truth isn't a matter of math. (Ayn Rand). Though I stand alone
>I still stand. I doubt I have convinced anyone to adopt my view, but
>again that wasn't my purpose. I wanted to put my idea up against some
>really sharp minds (consider yourselves complimented). I was able to
>answer all your attacks (sufficent for me if not for you), and I guess
>what I wanted from the whole thing. Thanks again. Be forewarned, I will
>be working and I will return some time when I can devote a week to answering
>all these challenges with the time they demand. Until that time I shall
>wish you all a great life, and after if you believe in such things. :-)
>Later all.

well, thanks for putting something interesting in the newsgroup,
but frankly, i was quite disappointed with your arguments. your position
has many serious holes in it, and i can't seriously believe that
you actually think you have answered them sufficiently.

the fallacy of equating truth with non-falsehood (which you use
indirectly, though you don't come right out and say it)
is so fundamental that any high school logic student
can demonstrate it. the fallacy of assuming that
because much of a book is true that all of it is, is probably worse --
it doesn't even pass the muster of common sense.

if you can actually make an argument like this, and still think
after reading all the counter-arguments that your "proof" is valid,
well, that must be the best way i could think of of demonstrating
that belief in God requires faith -- because that is the only way
an intelligent person could stand by your arguments.

thanks for your efforts though.

--
charles