Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:54:32 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.194506.112601@zeus.calpoly.edu> skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>>lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug21.183627.129345@zeus.calpoly.edu> skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>
>>seems to indicate, is ludicrious.  In "creating evidence of age," he would
>>have taken an action whose only purpose is to decieve us.  This contradicts
>>the basic concepts of God, therefore, this situation couldn't possibably
>>exist."
>
>This sound remarkably like the Bable fish argument.  Only that was
>presented as a joke.

Well, the hypothetical situation under question is a joke.

>If a croud of people are gathered around the supermarket, 50 miles from
>your house, saying that your house burned down, you have to believe
>it?  

Such an enent would seem incongrous at first, but it makes claims that
are open to independent testing.  I return to my house and see nothing
left.  I might see the fire covered on the evening news.  There are
certainly more ways I can find out about it other than witnessing it
for myself.

>Did you actually _see_ animals 1,000,000 years ago?  If you did,
>you have more to offer science than theories.

>>btw, what are these parts of the picture you think I'm missing?
>
>The world and its purpose is large and complex.  It is also only a
>small part of the greater plan of existance.  None of us have the whole
>big picture.

I asked for an explaination, NOT an assertion.  I get the funny
feeling that you don't really see any other parts to the picture, but
still think they must be there.  If you can't show there are any other
pieces to the picture, I'll just have to pass it up as irrational
mutterings.

>>>>The artifacts, or evidence, is remarkably intertwined and unified.  He must
>                                                                       ^^^^^^^
>>>>have gone to a heck of a lot of trouble to create it all, when it all would
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>lead to a false conclusion.  To have consciously created all this clearly
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>implies deception.
>>>
>>>This is based on the assumption that the age of the world is what those
>>>items were intended to indicate.  What if they were created for another
>>>purpose entirely, one which people (in general) have yet to discover?
>>>No, I do not know that purpose, that doesn't tell me that there is
>>>none.
>>
>>Here we go on "intent and purpose." <sigh>  We don't make any assumptions
>>about what a things purpose is, or that it even has a purpose.  We merely
>>find that an object can be dated as a result of its composition.  Any
                                                                    ~~~
>>purpose it has is irrelavent.  We have found our own use for them.
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>You aren't making assumptions about purpose?  What is the highlighted
>part of your post above?
>
>>Pardon me, but saying "there's a purpose, but I don't know what it is" seems
>>a bit irrational to me.  Saying "I don't know what purpose it could have,
>>but it's purpose couldn't possibably be for dating" is even more so.
>
>While I don't agree with you on this, how rational (in your definition)
>is, "The only possible reason these exist is to show that the world os
>old and that all species originated through evolution."
>
>Or is this not what you've said?

Re-read what is highlighted from my previous post above.  It is a
*fact* that the evidence shows that the world is old, and that species
have changed over the ages.  This is *independent* of any primary
purpose these things may have.  That is the important part.  But,
with the omniscient God, he'd still know how such evidence would be
taken.

>>>    - We will start with the assumption that there is no God, or that
>>>      God is not relevant to the topic at hand.
>>
>>Sorry, but evolution doesn't start with that assumption.
>
>Many of the people posting in favor of evolution seem to start here.
>
>>>    - We will not allow religious doctrines to guide our thoughts or
>>>      provide possible interpretations.
>>
>>Correction:  We won't let any particular, narrow, religious doctrine
>>restrict our interpretations if they become too contradictory with the
>>facts.
>>
>>>After this, they reach a conclusion which they find logicly consistant
>>>and branch out from that to the conclusion that their first point (no
                                                                     ~~~
>>>God) is proven.  That is not logicly sound.
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                 
>>Please back up your claim that evolution disproves God's existence.  As far
>>as I've seen, evolution is remarkable silent on that issue.
>
>I didn't claim that evolution disproves God's existence.  I claimed
>that many who post in favor of evolution claim that the "evidence"
>proves (at least) God's uninvolvement.

Then be more careful in how you say it.  But, it's still a claim that
you'll have to back up.  

>Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
>lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate

|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic