From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Date: 13 Nov 92 22:21:41 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <1992Nov13.154514.7700@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.041450.2296@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>>You attempt to
>>obfuscate and confuse by claiming that science and religion are on equal
>>footing because they both require "faith."  
>
>Have you actually read my posts?  Apparantly not because my whole point was
>to say the exact opposite.

Have you read your own posts??  You said:
     "I have faith in God for the same reasons you have faith in science"
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
This does not fit with your claim that:

> Science and religion are on seperate playing 
>fields and can therefore not be compared.

And I am still wondering what these same reasons are.

The following part was again edited to avoid being answered:
>>>If you read my posts again, I have never stated that I believe in the
>>>super-natural...
>
>>How can you believe in God and not in the supernatural?
>
>I never stated that I didn't believe in the supernatural either.

No, you are just being deceptive and elusive so as not to be pinned down on a
conclusive answer.  I find it hard to take you seriously when you use these
tactics.  Consider what you then deleted from my previous post.  I said:

  You said that science can't examine the supernatural, and I said that this
  is only a problem if the supernatural actually exists, so we are left
  waiting for your evidence of the supernatural.  If the supernatural doesn't
  exist then the fact that science can't examine it really doesn't matter.

I raised a similar issue previously, noting that if the supernatural exists,
but can't interact with the natural world, then it again doesn't matter (not
logically necessary).  You really still have not answered these basic
concerns, but have carefully edited them out to avoid them. Again.
>
>No, I'm trying to keep our discussion meaningful by staying away from
>religious issues. 

This is the first thing you have said that makes sense!  But to show the
meaninglessness of religion we must examine it.  Your reluctance to do so shows
that you really lack the conviction of your beliefs.  And your claims that
religion is irrelevant to this discussion don't make it so.  Your elusiveness
makes me think that you are less interested in discovering the truth than in
disguising your beliefs.  You said:

>>: any acts of God (supernatural) are, BY CONSTRUCTION, excluded from
>>: consideration.  One cannot make conclusions from science about God's
>>: existence or lack thereof because the two are unrelated.  

>>THE
>>central issue is whether or not there is any interaction between the natural
>>world and the supposed supernatural world.  Please give me your definitive
>>answer.  If the answer is yes, then please give me the reasons why you
>>believe this (examples of this interaction being included).  If the answer is
>>no, then the supernatural is reduced to being logically unnecessary, and
>>hence irrelevant.
If you are not going to answer these simple questions then please don't waste
your time posting a reply.

>You assume the supernatural does not exist so that all phenomena can
>only have natural explanations.

No, it is just the opposite: we observe phenomena that are best explained by
the natural world and therefore we then assume that the supernatural does not
exist.

>>>You don't see gravity, you see the effect of gravity.
>>
>>True, but the fact that it is predictable and reliable (this is what I meant
>>by our theoretical understanding of physics and our everyday interactions
>>with gravity) gives us every reason to believe that gravity in fact exists. 
>>Juxtapose this with claims of God's existence.  We may not see God, but can
>>we see the effects of God?  Some say yes, but the effects are neither
>>predictable nor reliable and give us reason to doubt those existential
>>claims.  If we can't see the effects of God then God becomes reduced to being
>>logically unnecessary.
Why don't you address the issues raised here?  It is totally relevant.

>>>you cannot truly prove gravity.  You can merely provide reasons for
>>>believing in gravity.
>>
>>Are you serious?  How much more proof do you need?  What do you mean by
>>"truly prove gravity?"  We don't need to assume gravity exists to go walk
>>outside and not worry about floating away up into the sky.  I'll ask again,
>>do you think that gravity does not exist?  Do you have any other explanation
>>for what we experience every day?
>
>Once again, all those theories ASSUME some sort of gravitational interaction
>as the basis for the theories.

Again: We don't need to assume gravity exists to go walk outside and not worry
about floating away up into the sky.

It appears that your scientific training (if I can call it that) has come from
the Bible.  Your counter-examples are filled with serious misconceptions about
science, nature, and the nature of scientific inquiry.  Your approach is to
flood the discussion with so much BS that it becomes impossible to reach any
conclusions.  You think that your arguments become stronger if I don't take the
time to point out every single mistake.

As I previously mentioned, your tactics of obfuscation, confusion, and
deception really make it hard for me to take you seriously.  You consistently
ignore and edit out important passages, both of what you have said and of
questions that I pose to you.  You claim that one can't make conclusions from
science about God's existence because the two are unrelated.  Then when I ask
for evidence of this, you refuse to answer, claiming that it is irrelevant. 
More likely, it is _because_ you think the two are unrelated.  This is the
logical fallacy of assuming what you are trying to prove.

Jim Copeland
-- 
I sink like a stone
That's been thrown in the ocean
My logic has drowned
In a sea of emotion                   -- Sting
Newsgroups: alt.atheism