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: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:45:06 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.183627.129345@zeus.calpoly.edu> skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>There is the same flaw.  You are expecting God to set up the system
>such that you are unable to make a mistake.  Have you ever considered
>that part of the purpose of life is to experience these opportunities
>to make choices?

You're making a big assumption yourself. It's preventing you from possibably
seeing that it is not a flaw.  You're assuming creationism to be true.
Therefore, I must be mistaken, and I'm being unreasonable when I say "God
should have set up the system so I wouldn't make a mistake."  I'm not saying
that; I'm saying, "The situation where this God would create a system where
a mistake seems obviously true, particularly in the way all the evidence
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."

>>No, you don't have complete knowledge of my possible future actions.  God,
>>by definition, does.
>
>Perhaps you are confused because you are only seeing _part_ of the picture.
>And they are still _your_ choices to make.

If I happen to see my house burning down, with a bunch of fire trucks around
it, and crowds of people gawking at the whole scene I *don't*have*any*
*rational*choice* to believe it's not happening.

btw, what are these parts of the picture you think I'm missing?

>>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.

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.

>What I was trying to point out here is a logic trap.  The "evolution"
>side of this debate takes the approach of:
>    - 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.

>    - 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.

>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        |
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15426 talk.origins:10390