From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:09:55 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <LAURAF.92Jul30150156@wolf.eecs.umich.edu> lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:

>>>-Laura:
>>> If one is not for Jehovah, he is against Jehovah.

>>-Simon:
>> Laura, are you for or against the purple dancing jellybeans on the dark
>> side of Saturn?

>-Laura:
> What does a purple dancing jellybean on the dark side of Saturn have to
> do with whether one is for or against God? You are taking a tangent that
> you will have to explain!

OK, I'll explain.

I contended that it is nonsensical to suggest, as you did, that Corey
is "making a stand against Jehovah" when Corey does not in fact believe
that Jehovah exists.

You replied that if one is not for Jehovah, then he is against Jehovah.

I then asked whether you are for or against the purple dancing jellybeans
on the dark side of Saturn in the assumption (tell me it's true, Laura!)
that you do not believe that they exist.

This would seem (to me) to make the question of whether you are for them or
against them rather ludicrous, since the idea of supporting or opposing
an entity which you don't even think exists is, well, erm, rather esoteric.

This, I hoped, would serve to illustrate by analogy the nonsensical
nature of your preceding statement.



>>>-Laura:
>>> This is true I did rely on my own reasoning based on what I have seen with
>>> respect to the bible and JW organization. Everything made sense and was
>>> clear. There were no confusion involved. The fact that everythings around
>>> us had a creator, e.g., computers, houses, etc., tells me that an even
>>> bigger things (e.g., the earth) would have to have a creator.

>>-Simon:
>> Unfortunately, you have inferred properties of a wide class of objects,
>> such as this planet, by generalising from the (truistic) property of
>> man-made objects that they have been made by man, without establishing
>> that there exists an overall equivalence which is adequate for that
>> generalisation to be made.

>-Laura:
> What?  How hard is to the evaluate in your own mind the complication involved
> with making a computer vs. make the earth?

Hmm. Looks like you haven't addressed what I wrote. Nevertheless, I happen
to agree that *if* the earth was made, *then* it's a pretty impressive
feat. The key words here are `if' and `then', of course, because I don't
share your assumption that it actually *was* made.



>-Laura:
> So just because one does not understand one should therefore conclude
> that the existence is nul. In my opinion, not a very logical thing to do.

No, I'm not saying that I don't understand how God created the earth and
therefore He can't have done it.

What I *am* saying is that your argument -- that all things, including
the earth, must have creators because computers and houses have creators --
is a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow, and you haven't justified it, you
have simply stated it. Without further justification, it is logically
equivalent (think about it) to saying that any property of some given
object must be shared by all other objects, which is also an unsupported
assertion and indeed is clearly false.

You need to *show* that it follows that if a house has a creator, then so
must the earth. Counterexample: A house has a door, four walls and a roof:
does this mean that the earth must have these too? Does the earth have a car
parked outside?

Do you see what I'm getting at? What *other* properties of houses/computers
are shared by the earth which imply that if houses/computers have a creator
then so must the earth?



>>-Simon:
>> A logically equivalent argument is that since the top of a desk is
>> flat, so must the earth be. It simply doesn't follow because no general
>> equivalence between desktops and planets has been demonstrated.

>-Laura:
> Nope.  Not a logical argument or equivalence.  We were not talking about its
> properties; we were talking about its existence (how it got here).

Whether an object has or does not have a creator is a property of that
object. `Man-made', for example, is a property of some objects. `Created',
in the sense in which we are speaking, is a property which you are trying
to convince me is possessed by the earth.



>>>-Laura:
>>> Inconsistent? No! Would it be inconsistent to trust the theoretical
>>> findings of physicists, engineers, chemists, etc., after their theories
>>> have been proved?

>>-Simon:
>> Short answer: yes.
>>
>> Long answer:
>> It would be inconsistent, having developed a theory based on evidence,
>> to declare that the theory *is* correct and that any conflicting evidence
>> which comes along must be wrong if it conflicts with the theory.
>>
>> This is *precisely* what you do, and precisely my criticism of it.

>-Laura:
> I see your point. However, this "conflicting evidence" must be substantiated
> first before it is considered conflicting.

The big problem is that you consider that evidence which conflicts
with the Bible *must* be wrong by definition. Thus your criterion for
substantiation is whether or not the evidence fits with your existing
theory that the Bible is true. Of course, you can therefore never find
`substantiated' conflicting evidence because of your definition of
`substantiated'.

>-Laura:
> Is this not true? Have not the theories been questioned and yet
> remained correct?

No, in general they haven't remained correct.

The flat-earth view has been supplanted by the round-earth view because
evidence came along that one could circumnavigate the earth without falling
off the edge.

Newtonian mechanics has been supplanted by special relativity in the face
of evidence that it (N.M.) was incorrect.

Many (the vast majority of) theories which have ever existed in science
have been, and continue to be, overturned by the arrival of conflicting
evidence. Many have been shown to be plain wrong; others have been
generalised (flat-earth is a locally valid approximation; N.M. also).



>-Laura:
> No proof has been substantiated for me to even consider it conflicting
> with what the bible says!

Well, there you go. Hardly surprising given your criterion for substantiation.

But on a slightly different tack, you may wish to look at Leviticus 11:20-23
and then tell me how many legs a grasshopper has. Here's the KJV story:

# 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an
#       abomination unto you.
#
# 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth
#       upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal
#       upon the earth;
#
# 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and
#       the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind,
#       and the grasshopper after his kind.
#
# 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet,
#       shall be an abomination unto you.

So how many legs does a grasshopper or locust have?

If a grasshopper or locust were shown to have other than four legs,
would you deny it? Would you rule the evidence out as unsubstantiated
because it is unscriptural?

> Regards,
> Laura

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc