From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Criticism: "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 03 Jan 93 04:15:31 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: usa


/(skinner)
/[much deleted for clarity]

/     1. Relationship with God is good.
/     2. Sin inhibits relationship with God.
/     3. All sin.
/     4. Forgiveness removes the effect of sin in (2).
/     5. Accepting Jesus provides forgiveness.

/The conclusion is, "Accepting Jesus is good."  The propositions which
/connect the premises to the conclusion were not made explicit (the
/connection was assumed obvious).  Because Mr. Sarver suggests there is
/no relationship between the premises and the conclusion, I will state
/the propositions.


It doesn't matter if you do state them, Skinner.  Suppose I draw entirely
different conclusions from your "propositions".  How will you enforce your
interpretation/linkage between one proposition and the next?

In other words, let's start with the following proposition:

1.  All sin.

What is the next legal proposition?  It could be:

2.  All are human.
2.  All have had some fun in their life.
2.  Sin is normal and nothing to be concerned about
2.  (yours)  A savior is needed.

Yet, when you make the jump from #1 to #2, suppose no one agrees with you?
In other words, you have defined the acceptable "jumps" from one proposition
to another.  There are an infinite number of second propositions that can
be spawned from this first one; how will you enforce your own candidate
for #2?



/(skinner)
/     o Sin inhibits something good, namely relationship with God.

/     o Forgiveness restores relationship with God in that it removes
/       the inhibiting effect of sin.  When sin is present, forgiveness
/       is therefore good.

/     o Accepting Jesus provides forgiveness.  It follows that if 
/       sin is present, accepting Jesus is good.

/     o All sin, so accepting Jesus is good, universally.

/Because of the above chain of reasoning, my example differs from the
/argument.

I'm sorry; it does not.  You have not proved or demonstrated anything. 
We have yet to agree that any of the established linkages are valid.





/(me)
/      1.  The sky is blue
/      2.  The grass is green
/      3.  Therefore, gravity pulls things downward (assume local reference for
/          the word "downward")


/(skinner)
/is not valid, for no chain of propositions can connect the
/premises (1 and 2) to the conclusion (3).


"No chain of propositions can connect them"?

Here they are:

1.  The sky is blue.  

2.  The gods make the color blue fall from heaven.  

3.  It is invisible to us because humans have only two eyes--three or more 
    eyes are necessary to see color falling--my holy book says so.

4.  The grass is green because it catches the invisible fallen blue from 
    heaven, and absorbs it, changing it into visible green.  Therefore,
    the blueness of the sky is the direct cause of the greenness of the
    grass.

4.  Green grass magically increases the pull on objects above it.  It is an
    attribute bestowed upon it by the gods.  Therefore, gravity pulls 
    things down because the grass is green.

You cannot disprove this, because my religion operates independent of
whatever "man's science" proves.  And, since my religion considers all
these linkages to be not only valid, but the *only acceptable* linkages,
this must be a valid argument.








Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc