Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-gandalf!hua
From: hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: To Bill Peter [Open letter, Part II]
Message-ID: <237@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 7-Mar-85 04:38:50 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-g.237
Posted: Thu Mar  7 04:38:50 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Mar-85 05:21:44 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 66

_____________________________________________________________________________

> > > { from: bill peter }
> > > Similarly, with the existence of a deity.  There is no way to prove the
> > > existence of a deity, but a good case can be made for the fact that
> > > certain peculiar physical coincidences and the structure of mathematical
> > > and physical laws INDICATES to many intelligent people the existence of
> > > a creator.
> 
> > { from: me }
> > Really?!  Please post some of these "peculiar physical coincidences and
> > structure of mathematical and physical laws" that indicate the existence
> > of a creator.  If these mythical things really do exist, I think people
> > in places like the ICR or the Moral Majority would have quickly snagged
> > them and use them for propaganda.  I have yet to see one such creature.
> 
> { from: bill peter }
> When you get out of elementary school and learn to read properly, maybe
> then we can have a discussion.  But I see no purpose in wasting time
> with you if you're going to liken my philosophical views to those held
> by people in the ICR and Moral Majority.

When you become mature enough not to insult others; when you learn to use
rational statements; etc ...

I am not going to wait that long.  I did not liken your views to those of
you-know-who's.  I simply said that they are the ones that will quickly
pick up and abuse that which you claim existed.  They also pick up and
abuse a LOT of other things which can hardly be liken to their views.
(e.g. scientific evidence for evolutionary theories)

Now, please produce what you claim to exist in your original statement.

> > > { from: bill peter }
> > > Note the existence of such a creator is not inconsistent with
> > > any known physical law or experimental observation.
> 
> > { from: me }
> > Note that the existence of twenty creators is not inconsistent with
> > any known physical law or experimental observation.  Nor is Santa Claus
> > or the Easter Bunny, but I doubt you have as much faith in them as you
> > do in the singular deity that you refer to.
> 
> { from: bill peter }
> When you retire from your mind-reading career and write a book
> about your exploits, I hope you mention how you deduced from so
> short a posting the true extent of my beliefs in a deity.  If you
> can read my mind now, I hope you take my advice and jump into the
> Monongahela river.

Why did you bother mentioning your original statement if you did not
support its implications?  one of which happens to be that you believe
in a creator and are defending your position ...

If you, in fact, did not support the above implication, why the sarcastic
remark?  rather than a quick-and-dirty explanation of your position ...

It is quite obvious that you prefer to use a childish counter-offensive,
rather than a set of rational statements.  I am not going to wish that
you jump into the Monongahela river.  I am not even going to say some-
thing like "I have a better choice of rivers into which you can jump."
Instead, I am asking that you provide a decent response to my previous
comments.  If you were just in a bad mood, say so.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Keebler