I apologize about this OT again but....

[cabman]

I'm getting a little scared about that Anthrax case down in Florida...

It turns out, as the story unfolds, that a letter carrying the Anthrax powder was delivered to some office in Florida and many handled it, including the 63 year old man who died and another one who tested positive for it.

It got me thinking, what if some nut out there decides to start mailing out thousands and thousands of these "Anthrax" infected letters to Americans....

this is getting serious, folks....we all need to stand together and fight this!
This is getting scary!

Thank you for reading.

God Bless America! I am flying the flag tonight.

[Kurt B]

Cabman, you need some philosophy.

There is no God. You are the contents of your brain. That is, you are the neural structure of your brain.
When this structure is lost, you are dead forever just as a painting is lost forever in a fire that consumes it.

If you took your brain and connected the neurons exactly as mine are connected, you'd think like me. You'd be a neural clone of me.

The word "Porsche" would then trigger the same neural response in your brain that it triggers in mine (along the same neural paths), and the thought generation would be that of mine. So you don't need 'your neurons' to be you, because neurons are just neurons. You just need them connected the right way--and they don't need to be made of the same organic material they are now either. They my be made of any suitable material that acts the same way.


Once again, there is no God. There is the present, and there is your neural structure.
Alcoa will freeze your brain for you. It is 50,000$. This is a very good deal.

I would take out an insurance policy as an old friend has so they will freeze my brain upon my death. Like my engine swap, I'm 'working on it' but will never get it done probably. Still, I plan on it.

Sometime in the distant future, a few different things might happen.

Although they my not be able to 'save and restart' your brain, they might be able to clone it with a suitable machine which recreates and emulates your brain pathways.

Such a machine would study and emulate the exact neural structure of your brain and copy its functionality in a simulator.

When run, this simulator would be you.

You could then 'wake up' in a program run by a neural emulating set of chips.
You'd be alive once again in a simulation. And then again this may be that simulation.
See if you can find a way to prove your experience is really a simulation.

Sincerely,
God AKA, programmer Bob year 3021.



[This message has been edited by Kurt B (edited 10-08-2001).]

[cabman]

Kurt B,

That is deep...

But I agree with you on God.....There are thousands of Gods, which one are you going to believe in? I only used "God Bless America" as a gesture.

we are all definitely biological and physiological structures. That's the miracle of life.

Whether or not a greater being exists that is responsible for the creation of the universe, space and time, there is no proof either way....your guess is as good as mine.

it's the biggest mystery...

gonna go read up on it.

[89911]

Thank you and welcome to the Pelican Parts News channel.....And for our latest breaking news item, we turn it over to "Cabman"........Seriously, to you have some hidden desire to be a newscaster? You just can't let these issues go by without commenting on them. To all others, post soon for this whole thread will be quickly removed.

[cabman]

Originally posted by 89911:
Thank you and welcome to the Pelican Parts News channel.....And for our latest breaking news item, we turn it over to "Cabman"........Seriously, to you have some hidden desire to be a newscaster? You just can't let these issues go by without commenting on them. To all others, post soon for this whole thread will be quickly removed.

hey, that's not fair.
If one off-topic thread gets removed, then all of them have to be removed.

[Kurt B]

Everything is beyond our control now. So just go about your life. In talking to a member of my programming team who's actually an Indian National, I got some philosophy out of her.
She's Hindu--a polytheistic religion which is a potpurri of many religions. Any religious philosophy can be torpedoed by modern evidence that demonstrates that when your neural structure is lost, you are lost. This is easy to prove with an Alzheimer's patient. You are your memories.

Well, she relies on a Descartesian philosophy. She considers our brains to be receivers that pick up waves of our existence. The waves are instructions sent to and from some other place of existence. Your brain picks up your waves like a particular radio station. So only your brain picks up and sends to the 'you' in some other place. When the brain is lost, it no longer accepts these waves correctly or at all. That is brain death.

But 'you' would still exist somewhere else.
Now, maybe someone really smart could find a way to make this work. I'd like to believe it. I can't because, while interesting and not as lame as omniscient 5th dimensional entities like God, it has a lot of problems. Still, it might help!

Also, read about Everett's many worlds theory used to explain quantum mechanics by reducing it to classical mechanics by suggesting that every irreversible quantum change causes the universe to split into divergent, but equally real universes. It's very amazing--and many great theoretical physicists accept it. You may find a way to live forever using Everett's theory, who knows!

[cabman]

Kurt,

you think too much.

[Yargk]

Kurt,

Unfortunately, I can't help but to come to many of the same conclusions about us humans being not much more than the sum of our parts. I'd be much happier if your friend's descartesian philosophy was true. Now I'd just be banking that the reality that I continue to experience coincides with the reality in which I stop aging at my prime due to a great quantum stroke of luck.

Keith

[This message has been edited by Yargk (edited 10-08-2001).]

[old_skul]

It's the Krazy Kurt and Cabman Show!

------------------
Mark Szabo
1986 911 Targa 3.2
1987 Escort 5-speed 1.9 RIP
The Porsche Owners Gallery

[ghanlon]

Kurt
whatever your smokin I'll take two. Just reading your last post made my head spin. I even put the bottle away! Deep Stuff!!
gary

------------------
ghanlon

[pvvd72s]

Originally posted by cabman:
I'm getting a little scared about that Anthrax case down in Florida...

It turns out, as the story unfolds, that a letter carrying the Anthrax powder was delivered to some office in Florida and many handled it, including the 63 year old man who died and another one who tested positive for it.


It got me thinking, what if some nut out there decides to start mailing out thousands and thousands of these "Anthrax" infected letters to Americans....

this is getting serious, folks....we all need to stand together and fight this!
This is getting scary!

Thank you for reading.

God Bless America! I am flying the flag tonight.

Cabby, Don't be scared. You cannot worry about what you cannot control. But, if you want to be safe and worry free, move to Alaska until this is over.
But also keep this in mind. This bio/germ warfare scare might just be a put on by our goverment to make us worry and keep us mad at the Taliban while they give the middle east an enema.

[adamnitti]

geez! i hope you guys are kidding. ok, i want to get in on the fun, too!!! here's my huge OT rant to throw in the pile:

yes, it's true... people suck. we all know that. but debating this god stuff sounds like fun to me...

kurt... by stating unequivocally that 'there is no god', you are claiming to have all the answers with respect to the existence of any force or power greater than ourselves. i am assuming, then, that you would not consider yourself someone who has a faith life. this, however, directly contradicts the fact that you actually have established a faith that god does NOT exist. you are obviously extremely knowledgable, and your reply to cabman explains the workings of our brains by breaking down our anatomy into tiny scientific components, and your case is made based on what the scientific world calls 'proof' and substantiated evidence. in spite of all of your understanding, however, you still are not able to prove conclusively that god DOES NOT exist, and this is where the big 'there is no god' claim loses all of its steam. it seems as if you look to science for the answer to life's questions about how things work and why things happen, because it is based on proof and evidence. yet, science continues to evolve and change every day as we learn even more about what we thought we understood completely at an earlier time. i think we need to keep this in mind when anytime we conclude that we really 'know' something. in light of this, you could look at science as being a sort of religion of its own, in a sense. are mere theories and hypotheses based on factual evidence? they are more of a leap of faith than anything else based on what we know at the time. as is the case with religion and spiritual matters, science is filled with all sorts of gray areas and unanswered questions. you acknowledge that we, as humans have limitations as to what we can and cannot do as well as what we do and do not understand when you identify the future as a time that will provide even more understanding. the workings of a human brain are absolutely TINY in the scope of an entire universe. if you can acknowledge limitations in our current technology with respect to the human brain, HOW IN THE WORLD can you claim to have knowledge of things that operate beyond our current level of understanding, such as how god might work? you are still operating on faith, my friend, and you're going to have to show me some proof before i ever start to doubt the existence of god.

(kurt, i hope you understand i submit all of this respectfully. you're one of my favorite people on this board, and i mean no offense.)

i'm just trying to stir the pot a little for you heathens out there...


------------------
Adam Nitti
ajnitti@mindspring.com
www.adamnitti.com
'85 911 Carrera Coupe
'72 BMW 2002tii
'97 Grand Cherokee Limited
Peachstate PCA member

[This message has been edited by adamnitti (edited 10-09-2001).]

[Superman]

I got only as far as the beginning of Kurt's post. I did not quit reading out of disgust or denial, I am in a hurry and must go. but I want to say this:

I have a degree in Philosphy and I am tired of folks who think they are brilliant and want everyone to see this brilliance by presenting arguments against the existence of God. At the same time I noticed the Philisophy Dean was similarly unimpressed by these people, and this was in 1975. He was a Unitarian.

There are several quite compelling (if you actually think about them) logical proofs of the existence of God. My personal favorite is the Cartesian (Rene Descartes) form of St' Anselms proof. though brief, I will not restate it here. It is truly a haunting proof, but you might have to work for weeks on a refutation in order to see there is no escape from it. Immanuel Kant made the best refute by suggestion that existence simply cannot be used as a predicate, but as brilliant as he was (very) this refute does not overcome, and he knew that.

At any rate, the smartest people I have known have more than accepted God's existence. The ones who have not, believe they are smart, and admittedly they are not dumb. but their most striking characteristic has been their arrogance, not their wisdom.

I am not calling you names, Kurt and I have enjoyed many of your posts, though I have been saddened by some of them. I respect your position and enjoy your 'e-company.' But I also know for a fact you are incorrect in this conclusion.

[Kurt B]

That's okay Superman, but remember, I know St Anselm's proof as well, and in fact, will give a brief version of it right here. The fact is, you can use it to prove anything, and if you like, I'll do that too.

Here's his proof, which uses reductio ad absurdum.

Def: God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived
0) Assume that God does not exist
1) Let X have all of the properties of God but with the additional property of existence
2) X encompasses God 1)
3) X is greater than God 2). This contradicts our assumption that nothing greater than God can be conceived, therefore 0) must be false, and God exists

Now, superman, shall I just go ahead and prove Atlantis exists using the same proof? or...how about this, I'll prove Superman exists.

Def: Superman is a super hero than which no more powerful superhero can be conceived.
0) Assume Superman does not exist
1) Let GreenLantern have all of the properties of Superman but with, yes, additional property of existence
2) ...
etc

I'll spare you the rest.

Also, when I had to take a philosophy class I for fun proved that there are infinitely many Gods each greater than the previous God using mathematical induction and St. Anslem's proof.

The professor was of course, impressed I guess, but he focused on insisting I leave out the ks and k+1s. I was more impressed with myself than he was with me, put it that way.

Now to the previous post which I was prepared to respond to before Superman went off about my self ingratiation.

1) Of course I have no proof that God does not exist, just as I have no proof that other things: ghosts, voodoo, tarot cards and so on, do not yield reproducible evidence. God is carefully Undefined by believers. This is to keep him nebulous, distant because His primary duty is comforting the living.


2) Which of your conciousnesses goes to the afterlife? The one at 17, the old man at 80, the 8 year old child? Think about it. If you put each of these people in a room together, they'd all be different people, with different knowledge, different opinions etc, only sharing the same DNA and bits and pieces of the same life experience, marred by a faded and distorted memory.

Once you start thinking about which you, or if some compression of all of them goes in, then you've got a lot of work to do in painting the picture of how this afterlife works. But don't just say "It's all of them..."
And if you think about how much of you is dependent on the experiences we have here, on the sound of a Porsche, on love of animals, good food--try to think of how much of 'you' will be there in the absence of EVERYTHING corporeal.
I mean, how much of you is contained in your abstractions that have nothing to do with real objects, real people, real smells?

For those who want to believe, the Saint's proof will work fine. It's a valid proof; if you accept the axioms, you should accept the conclusion (I think you must anyway).

Meanwhile, I'm still not going to believe in Superman, God, or Atlantis. Or anything else you want to prove. Name it, and we can prove it.
Proof Inc. via the Saint.



[This message has been edited by Kurt B (edited 10-09-2001).]

[Superman]

Well you know Superman exists.

And here's the proof I was thinking of (by the way, I am impressed you know something about St. Anselm's proof):

A1: I am thinking of a being than which there can be no greater.

A2: If the being I am thinking of does not exist, the I am not thinking of a being than which there can be no greater.

Conclusion: The being I am thinking of exists.

Now, this seems silly when you first look at it, but that would be because you have rejected outright the notion that God's existence can be proved. The tricky part is to identify which axiom is false.

Which of those two axioms is false?

[Kurt B]

A2: If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then I am not thinking of a being than which there can be no greater.

Take the contrapositive of A2 as you stated it:

If I am thinking of a being than which there can be no greater, then
The being I am thinking of exists.

Using Pink elephants, instead, we'll restate the contrapositive.

If I am thinking of Pink Elephants on the moon that dance, then
Pink elephants on the moon that dance exist.

Oh, in as far as which axiom is false.
Do you know Anyone who will accept the statement If I am thinking of A then A exists?

Come on.


[This message has been edited by Kurt B (edited 10-09-2001).]

[Jim T]

I, too, have studied more than my fair share of philosophy over the years.

Most students of philosophy would agree that the various "proofs" of the existence of God, including Aquinas, St. Anselm, etc. have long been shown to be faulty.

The truth of the matter is that there are two ways to determine the truth of any proposition: Reason or faith.

I never understood why the "faithful" always profess their faith, but never are really comfortable relying on their faith to establish the existence of their God. Which leads to attempts to "prove" a faith-based belief using the tools and structure of reason. It just doesn't work, and has been, and always will be, shown to be faulty. Why not just accept the fact that a belief in god has no basis in reason or logic, but only in blind faith?

And, if there is a god, that MUST be the way he wants it. He MUST want people to believe in him by blind faith only. Either that, or he is not very powerful. Because he could always prove the existence of himself if he is ominpotent, etc. Just broadcast his message on every TV set in the entire world, on every channel, for 24 hours. Not a tough task for an omnipotent god. Yet, he does not do it. Therefore, he must not want his existence to be proven, and he must want people to believe in him on blind faith only.

[Superman]

Kurt, you've missed it and I doubt you will ever get it, even though the argument is elegant. Your decision to reject it probably won't allow you to understand it. So, your response was to mis-construct A2's contrapositive. In its place, you used a senseless and contorted abbreviation of both premises plus the conclusion. If you want to try again to refute this proof, you need to do one of two things. Show one or the other premise to be false, or deny they lead to the conclusion. I'd agree with Mr. T though. This is just a toy. The Being Than Which There Can Be No Greater, while making the truth so obvious it can scarcely be missed, did not take this decision completely out of your hands. Some things must be believed to be seen. The choice is incredibly clear. Either Jesus Christ was a raving lunatic, or he was not. "Who do you say I am?" he asked.

Then again, I really do not want to draw this thing out. This discussion has already gone on for over a bazillion pages and will go another bazillion. I understand your views Kurt, but Jim T's observation is absolutely right on point. And I can't even tell which decision he has made, from his remarks. But he understands the key. Some folks misinterpret this key element as a 'brainwashing requirement' thing. Like in William James' famous treatise, "The Will To Believe." But that's not it. This is the great stumbling block.

I was once too smart for faith too. But there are stumbling blocks there too. Why would an all-powerful and all-good creator allow pain to exist in the world? If He created the world, then He created the pain, and is therefore not all good. it's a tough one and there are many tough ones, unless you can get past the Key. And the key is that your conclusion simply is not a matter of logic. It is just only that...a conclusion. A decision. If you had made another decision, you would be a forceful spokesman for Him, as are many brilliant men both today and yesterday. God's nonexistence has not been proven to you. It has been decided by you. In spite of insanely overwhelming evidence. It requires an explosive amount of intellectual energy to hold and maintain a position such as you have taken, but it is still your decision.

And Jim T., I'd agree that great vigor has gone into refutations of the various arguments, and that they all have taken their licks. Again, they are just interesting 'thinker toys.' I was fairly struck by this particular one though. It seems to be the one most quickly dismissed out of hand, but the most frustrating one to formally refute.

Thanks guys, for the chat. Hope no one took offense.

[Z-man]

Hey, this is getting interesting.
I feel that a 'blind faith' is not enough to be a believer in God (which I am: a believer).

Faith is the starting point of God: God cannot be completely and 100% proven (neither can we disprove God 100%). But the problem with blind faith is this: NO RELATIONSHIP! A relationship with God requires humans to struggle with, and evaluate the existance of God! This is different than trying to prove God.

I have often wrestled with my faith in God and I have questioned His seemingly illogical ways. (Pause: no lightning yet! ) All this has just brought me closer to Him: it just helped to verify my faith in Him. I have read various philosophies and studied different religions; debated amongst people with different backgrounds, different belief systems. Granted, my point of view started from a Christian perspective, hopefully I've been able to put down my rose-colored glasses to see the 'other side' more clearly.

So what am I saying? I believe that God does exist, and has a plan for our lives. Faith is the starting point, but it is part of our nature to seek more knowledge. I cannot prove God, but I can search for His presence in this world.

Here's an interesting philosophical puzzle:
To keep it simple:
Assumption 1: There either exists an all-knowing God, or their exists NO God.
Assumption 2: You either believe in God or you do not believe in God.

Conclusion 1: If God exists, and you believe, EVERYTHING is gained (ie: Heaven)
Conclusion 2: If no God exists, and you believe in God, NOTHING is lost (except maybe a few parties you didn't go to here on earth!)
Conclusion 3: If no God exists, and you do not believe in God, NOTHING is lost.
Conclusion 4: If God exists, and you don't believe in Him: ALL is lost. (ie: HELL)

Granted this line of logic has some loopholes (what if the God I believe in isn't the true one?...etc). But it still gives an interesting logical view on this whole thing.

Sorry for rambling. I did not mean to offend anyone, and would love to hear from you...
-Zoltan.

------------------
PCA NNJR
My Toy:


[This message has been edited by Z-man (edited 10-10-2001).]

[adamnitti]

i can't believe i just skipped karate class in order to finish this post........

Originally posted by Kurt B:
1) Of course I have no proof that God does not exist, just as I have no proof that other things: ghosts, voodoo, tarot cards and so on, do not yield reproducible evidence.

so, then, let's get one thing straight here. by admitting you have no proof of god's existence out of the lack of reproducible evidence, then you cannot state as FACT that god does not exist, right? so, this is your personal belief or your opinion. you have simply chosen to not believe in god. if you are willing to accept that this is true, then you have to at least consider that there is a POSSIBILITY that god exists. if you are NOT willing to accept that this is a belief or opinion, then you are contradicting yourself by your own definitions of proof, evidence, and existence, and just being stubborn. if not believing in god is your choice, don't make absolute statements that god does not exist, because you haven't proved it.

God is carefully Undefined by believers.

this is completely untrue. carefully undefined??? who in the world are you looking to as being representative of the body of believers? some ol' time gospel hours' television staff of hypocritical clowns? do you really think that a true 'believer' is going to be this protective of god, as if god's true existence needed some kind of shrouding or candy coated misrepresentation so as not to hurt anyones feelings and subsequently scare them off? a believer longs to be CLOSE to god, not at a distance. but a person living in faith knows that life as we know it now is dirty and unfair. why? because humans are so damn imperfect, regardless of whether they believe in god or not.

This is to keep him nebulous, distant because His primary duty is comforting the living.

god has a 'primary duty'? who decided this? if god deals in anything, it's reality. HUMANS make the choice whether or not they want to stuff god into a neat little box in order to make them feel better about themselves or to find some sort of explanation for events that seem so unfair to them. a life of faith isn't about what god can do for you, it's about what you can do for god. it is selfish and utterly ridiculous to try and 'use' religion as a way to elevate yourself above others, or organize a bunch of people that are simply 'on your team'. that's the difference between 'religion' and faith.

2) Which of your conciousnesses goes to the afterlife? The one at 17, the old man at 80, the 8 year old child? Think about it. If you put each of these people in a room together, they'd all be different people, with different knowledge, different opinions etc, only sharing the same DNA and bits and pieces of the same life experience, marred by a faded and distorted memory.

why do you assume that one would enter into the afterlife as a mere human emulation or conglomeration of bits and pieces of the human experience? i've never been to the afterlife, but i can tell you that if it's nothing more that a more elevated version of what i've been involved with for the last 31 years, i couldn't give a crap about going there. if that's what you think, no wonder you don't believe. i don't expect an afterlife to be subject to any of our own perceived limitations or boundaries, and i certainly wouldn't expect it to even resemble a product of mere human 'consciousness'. you're trying to define the afterlife using only the tangible and defined, and not the spiritual. furthermore, your assumptions about what the afterlife couldn't be are based on a dynamic scale that revolves around the perpetuation of time, itself. i don't believe that the concept of time has any place in the afterlife. i believe that god simply 'is', and that 'is' is clustered together with 'was' and 'will be' into one big huge existence that is beyond my comprehension. the beautiful thing is that i don't have to comprehend it all in order to see it working in my life. the rest of it is all gray area crap, because it doesn't matter if you have faith. the fact that i see it working in my life is my proof and my reality, and you can't disprove my reality.

Once you start thinking about which you, or if some compression of all of them goes in, then you've got a lot of work to do in painting the picture of how this afterlife works. But don't just say "It's all of them..."

fine. it's NONE of them. i can't explain to you how the afterlife 'works.' the only thing i know is that it does work.

And if you think about how much of you is dependent on the experiences we have here, on the sound of a Porsche, on love of animals, good food--try to think of how much of 'you' will be there in the absence of EVERYTHING corporeal.

none of these experiences make any difference, whatsoever, when you are speaking in terms of faith or spiritual existence. all of that is here today, gone tomorrow. yes, we are inevitably influenced by our experiences, but those experiences are gone forever when we're dead. if your entire being, substance, and existence was only a product of your human experiences, then there probably couldn't be a god. but if we are only a product of experience, then how did we even enter this world in the first place?

For those who want to believe, the Saint's proof will work fine. It's a valid proof; if you accept the axioms, you should accept the conclusion (I think you must anyway).

please don't take offense to this, but to me that's all a bunch of bull****. you are obviously a million times more knowledgable than me with respect to science, proofs, axioms, etc... i can't even begin to argue with you guys using the language and terms that you and superman are throwing back and forth. but it's going to take more that some human being-created axiom or proof to prove to me that god doesn't exist. there's one thing you need to remember, and i'll shut up after i say this: i'm not afraid to challenge my faith or anyone else's. for faith to be worth a crap, it has to be TESTED time and again. you really think god has a problem with being challenged? that's what faith is all about. what good is a faith if it's blind? you don't accept that god exists because i or someone else tells you; you find out for yourself. if you ever decide to truly accept that there is even a REMOTE possibility that god exists, and then decide to seek out for yourself based on your own testing, proof, etc., only then will you have the answer to the question.

------------------
Adam Nitti
ajnitti@mindspring.com
www.adamnitti.com
'85 911 Carrera Coupe
'72 BMW 2002tii
'97 Grand Cherokee Limited
Peachstate PCA member