From: lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: University of Michigan
	<1992Jul28.180329.4995@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
	<LAURAF.92Jul30150156@wolf.eecs.umich.edu>
	<1992Jul31.160955.24704@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:58:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.160955.24704@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:

   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.

Okay.  In that sense, if I don't believe in them then I would be against any
theories brought about in their name or about them.  True?

Esoteric.  I do believe that is a perfect description for belief in the bible.  Don't
you?

   >>>-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.

Simon, I have addressed your statement.  However, I find your inference as much
lacking as you find mine.  I do find it very impressive that you are willing to
discuss this rationally.  I very much like talking about the bible.

What evidence do you have that the earth wasn't made?  If you don't have any
evidence, then why assume it wasn't 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.

My argument is that everything on this earth (I will exclude man and the earth
itself for agruments sake) had a creation.  Do you not agree so far?  And if
everything (in this context) had a creator, couldn't something of far more
complication also have a creator?  Why explain it away as a "big bang" and poof
it was there.  That reasoning to me is very fallible.

   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?

Yes, I see your reasoning here.  However, you are being too specific.  I am saying
it had to get here somehow.  In my opinion, a creator makes more sense then a
"big bang, poof" theory.  Especially, when a computer can't come into existance
with a "big bang and a poof"; it takes intelligence to put together the
ciruitry.  Why is is so unreasonable to assume that it takes intelligence to put
together man or the earth?

   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'.

I logical conclusion would be *each and everyone* of us have different views and
standards.  I agree.  For humans to conclude that one is wrong based on their
definition of 'substantiated', would be wrong.  Only a higher authority is
capable of doing such.

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

   No, in general they haven't remained correct.

Most of the theories and laws have not remained correct?  Then why am I
bothering to learn these it they are not correct?  I was under the impression
that for the most part the laws after being established were very hard to prove
wrong.  Therefore they remain true and are taught as such.  There are a few that
have been proven false.

   >-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.

And what is your criterion for substantiated?

   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:

Thank you.  I will once I get home.  I will treat the questions as hypothetical
and ponder on what you are pointing out.  (unless of course you want me to respond)

   Cheers

   Simon

Regards,
Laura
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc