Sickness & cancer against creation hypothesis?
david ford
Argument #1
Premise 1: If the Judeo-Christian God of theism made a biological
world, that world wouldn't be full of sickness and agonizing death
from diseases such as cancer.
Premise 2: The biological world we see _is_ full of sickness and
agonizing death from diseases such as cancer.
Conclusion: The biological world wasn't made by the Judeo-Christian
God of theism.
Argument #2
Premise 1: If an intelligent entity or entities made a biological
world, that world wouldn't be full of sickness and agonizing death
from diseases such as cancer.
Premise 2: The biological world we see _is_ full of sickness and
agonizing death from diseases such as cancer.
Conclusion: The biological world wasn't made by an intelligent entity
or entities.
Arguments 1 and 2 are modus tollens arguments--
if p, then q; not-q; therefore, not-p.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
david ford wrote:
> What, if anything, is wrong with the following arguments?:
The idiot who is making them.
What, if anything, is the scientific theory of creation?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Steven J.
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.04012...@posting.google.com...
> What, if anything, is wrong with the following arguments?:
>
> Argument #1
> Premise 1: If the Judeo-Christian God of theism made a biological
> world, that world wouldn't be full of sickness and agonizing death
> from diseases such as cancer.
> Premise 2: The biological world we see _is_ full of sickness and
> agonizing death from diseases such as cancer.
> Conclusion: The biological world wasn't made by the Judeo-Christian
> God of theism.
>
I mean, I can see how there might be a "Judeo-Christian God of atheism"
(i.e. the or at least an atheistic evaluation of that God), but surely such
a being would be no more posited as Creator of the world than would the
tooth fairy. Any Judeo-Christian God capable of making anything outside the
opinions of His believers must be a God of theism.
Obviously, major premise 1 is defective; the classic Christian view is that
sickeness and agonizing death are sad but necessary consequences of God's
allowing freedom to His creations. On the one hand, you have various YECs
who hold that if the Judeo-Christian God created a world, and the beings in
His image for whom that world was created sinned against Him, He would
punish them by, e.g. and _inter alia_, creating parasites to prey on crabs
and giving cancer to tigers. Conversely, you have Christian theologians
like John Haught who hold that sickness and agonizing death are necessary
consequences of God's granting freedom to His entire creation; these things
are largely side effects of evolution, but evolution is precisely the result
of the freedom God granted to His creation.
I assume you don't expect any significant problems to be found with the
minor premise 2.
>
> Argument #2
> Premise 1: If an intelligent entity or entities made a biological
> world, that world wouldn't be full of sickness and agonizing death
> from diseases such as cancer.
> Premise 2: The biological world we see _is_ full of sickness and
> agonizing death from diseases such as cancer.
> Conclusion: The biological world wasn't made by an intelligent entity
> or entities.
>
Premise 1 is not stated in quite the right way. Rather, if an intelligent
entity made a biological world, *and* that world is full of, etc., then
certain sets of premises cannot all be true together. Either the
intelligent entity does not have, as its highest priority, the happiness of
its creations, or it is not intelligent enough or powerful enough to
anticipate and prevent such harms from befalling its creations. If you
argue, e.g. for a "perfect" creation by a "perfect" Creator, then sickness
and agonizing death suggest that "perfect" in this context can't have
anything close to its colloquial meaning.
>
> Arguments 1 and 2 are modus tollens arguments--
> if p, then q; not-q; therefore, not-p.
>
-- Steven J.
Rev. Desertphile
ford) wrote:
> What, if anything, is wrong with the following arguments?:
>
> Argument #1
> Premise 1: If the Judeo-Christian God
There is an error right off the bat. There is no such thing as "the"
"Judeo-Christian God:" there are the Jewish gods and the Christian
gods. The two cults have totally different gods.
> of theism made a biological
> world, that world wouldn't be full of sickness and agonizing death
> from diseases such as cancer.
If the gods did create life on Earth, I do not see why those gods
would not include sickness and horrible death in the matrix. Human
ethics and kidness need not apply to the gods.
> Premise 2: The biological world we see _is_ full of sickness and
> agonizing death from diseases such as cancer.
Very true.
> Conclusion: The biological world wasn't made by the Judeo-Christian
> God of theism.
There are a hell of a lot more gods in Judaism and Christianity:
perhaps the desert war god YHWH is fond of horror, disease, and misery
(i.e., YHWH is depected accurately in the Hebrew Testament). Or
perhaps the Jesus god really is as schizophrenic as depicted in the
Christian Testament. Or the Christian god Satan really is the fiend
they claim it is. There is no reason to believe that these gods would
object to misery and death, if they exist or existed.
> Argument #2
> Premise 1: If an intelligent entity or entities made a biological
> world, that world wouldn't be full of sickness and agonizing death
> from diseases such as cancer.
That doesn't add up either. What about mistakes? Perhaps the gods
didn't know what they were doing and bundled the job. Perhaps the gods
got interrupted by their parents half-way through the creation job and
they never got around to finishing it.
> Premise 2: The biological world we see _is_ full of sickness and
> agonizing death from diseases such as cancer.
Obviously.
> Conclusion: The biological world wasn't made by an intelligent entity
> or entities.
This is the null hypothesis: one doesn't need the existance of
sickness and death to make this conclusion.
> Arguments 1 and 2 are modus tollens arguments--
> if p, then q; not-q; therefore, not-p.
--
"To the bat tank!" --- Tank Girl
Asking a Creationist for scientific evidence is like asking a hippo to ride
a unicycle.
(BigDiscusser)
relationship. Love cannot be coerced. He could have created us as
puppets to love Him. but real love must be given freely--so there must
be freedom. Freedom brings choices, sin has consequences. He solved
this problem thru Jesus ( God Himself died on the cross for our
sin) and returned us to that loving relationship. Now we may have the
tools to live in this fallen world with His help, and the blessed hope
of Heaven. God bless, Jo Jean
I am an 82 year old Christian lady. I am interested in a wide variety of
topics and am a retired RN.
http://community.webtv.net/JOJOYD/BigDiscusser
Jesus loves you.
John Chap 1 v 3
Colossians Chap 1 v 16, 17--defeats evolution with ADAPTATION by Jesus
who is IN His creation (not evolution) plus scientifically untouchable
classic morality, equals the DIVINE SYNTHESIS.
MUSLIMS NEED JESUS CHRIST AS THE SON OF GOD ALMIGHTY, and follow His Way
of Love with us, worshipping in their own Mosques.
Severian
(\(BigDiscusser\)) wrote:
>God created us for fellowship with Him--for a mutual loving
>relationship. Love cannot be coerced. He could have created us as
>puppets to love Him. but real love must be given freely--so there must
>be freedom. Freedom brings choices, sin has consequences. He solved
>this problem thru Jesus ( God Himself died on the cross for our
>sin) and returned us to that loving relationship. Now we may have the
>tools to live in this fallen world with His help, and the blessed hope
>of Heaven. God bless, Jo Jean
I must admit, sometimes I can be simultaneously appalled and impressed
by a single paragraph of complete nonsense.
- Sev
John Wilkins
Yes. I have read legal contracts too.
--
John Wilkins
wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
Ryan
>
> Argument #1
> Premise 1: If the Judeo-Christian God of theism made a biological
> world, that world wouldn't be full of sickness and agonizing death
> from diseases such as cancer.
I would be interested to see how you may have arrived at that premise
because in short: it's wrong.
I assume your argument comes loosely out of theodicy. In other words that
this "Judeo-Christian God of theism" (God) is benevolent and therefore there
shouldn't be bad things in the world. That is of course incorrect as
described in the bible (and Torah) Earth is not intended to be perfect.
Instead it is intended to be imperfect despite being made by a perfect
creator. This is clearly communicated in the bible the simplest example of
which is Adam and eve being forced out of paradise (when you leave paradise
you inevitably go to somewhere other than paradise)
A small side argument is that if Jesus didn't want agonizing death in the
world, why did he go ahead and suffer one?
(remember that we are dealing in the hypothetical. I understand that many of
you do not believe Jesus actually died on the cross or that he represented
the Judeo-Christian God. But consider that granted that. your argument is
null and therefore it is wasted on me)
> Premise 2: The biological world we see _is_ full of sickness and
> agonizing death from diseases such as cancer.
> Conclusion: The biological world wasn't made by the Judeo-Christian
> God of theism.
>
If the first premise were correct the rest of the argument would be
logically sound
> Argument #2
> Premise 1: If an intelligent entity or entities made a biological
> world, that world wouldn't be full of sickness and agonizing death
> from diseases such as cancer.
Once again wrong. You have to consider the intention of the inteligent
being, and whether or not the inteligentcreator wanted sickness and death or
not.
AC
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:42:25 +0000 (UTC),
Rev. Desertphile <deser...@cchr.ws> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 03:30:46 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
> ford) wrote:
>
>> What, if anything, is wrong with the following arguments?:
>>
>> Argument #1
>> Premise 1: If the Judeo-Christian God
>
> There is an error right off the bat. There is no such thing as "the"
> "Judeo-Christian God:" there are the Jewish gods and the Christian
> gods. The two cults have totally different gods.
I don't really agree with this one. It seems like quibbling to me. I
consider that, based upon history and some of the more general conceptions,
Jews, Christians and Muslims all share the same god. Obviously, because of
differing traditions and theological leanings, how they view YHVH may
differ.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
us...@example.com
>God created us for fellowship with Him--for a mutual loving
>relationship. Love cannot be coerced. He could have created us as
>puppets to love Him. but real love must be given freely--so there must
>be freedom. Freedom brings choices, sin has consequences. He solved
>this problem thru Jesus
Before Jesus there was no sickness or cancer?
Al Klein
<mightym...@yahoo.ca> posted in alt.atheism:
>I don't really agree with this one. It seems like quibbling to me. I
>consider that, based upon history and some of the more general conceptions,
>Jews, Christians and Muslims all share the same god. Obviously, because of
>differing traditions and theological leanings, how they view YHVH may
>differ.
Jews have a god who never had children. Christians have a god who had
a son. Moslems have a god and they have the son, but not the
connection between the two, Jesus merely being a normal human being
who was a prophet.
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Severian
(John Wilkins) wrote:
>Severian <seve...@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:26:29 +0000 (UTC), JOJ...@webtv.net
>> (\(BigDiscusser\)) wrote:
>>
>> >God created us for fellowship with Him--for a mutual loving
>> >relationship. Love cannot be coerced. He could have created us as
>> >puppets to love Him. but real love must be given freely--so there must
>> >be freedom. Freedom brings choices, sin has consequences. He solved
>> >this problem thru Jesus ( God Himself died on the cross for our
>> >sin) and returned us to that loving relationship. Now we may have the
>> >tools to live in this fallen world with His help, and the blessed hope
>> >of Heaven. God bless, Jo Jean
>>
>> I must admit, sometimes I can be simultaneously appalled and impressed
>> by a single paragraph of complete nonsense.
>Yes. I have read legal contracts too.
Patents are even worse.
Richard S. Crawford
> What, if anything, is wrong with the following arguments?:
>
> Argument #1
> Premise 1: If the Judeo-Christian God of theism made a biological
> world, that world wouldn't be full of sickness and agonizing death
> from diseases such as cancer.
> Premise 2: The biological world we see _is_ full of sickness and
> agonizing death from diseases such as cancer.
> Conclusion: The biological world wasn't made by the Judeo-Christian
> God of theism.
[snip]
> Arguments 1 and 2 are modus tollens arguments--
> if p, then q; not-q; therefore, not-p.
Arguments 1 and 2 are essentially the same (you simply replace
"Judeo-Christian God of theism" with "intelligent designer(s)").
The argument is sound, but premise 1 is flawed. A Creationist (and many
other flavors of Christianity -- I don't know how ID'ers would address the
flaw) would tell you that the world that God created *was*, in fact, free
of sickness and suffering and agonizing death and so on, until the Fall.
Thus, Premise 1 is negated, so the argument is invalid.
This is a fairly old version of the problem of evil, one of the various
proofs offered against the existence of God. It can generally be seen as
an argument from ignorance; the arguer doesn't see how God can possibly
allow evil in the world, so concludes that God doesn't exist. Practically
every theologian in the world has a theory about the problem of evil, some
more convincing than others. The book of Job in the Bible is about
nothing more than this problem (it is not, as many Creationists seem to
think, a guide to astronomy). Rabbi Kirschner's popular book, "When Bad
Things Happen to Good People" is an interpretation of Job.
There are much better and more philosophically sound arguments for atheism
out there. This one is not a challenge to Creationists, unless you can
demonstrate the validity of the first premise -- which can be quite a
challenge, when you take the myth of the Fall into account.
Throatwarbler Mangrove
Desertphile) wrote in message
<buvku2$m945s$3...@ID-197010.news.uni-berlin.de>:
>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 03:30:46 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
>ford) wrote:
>
>> What, if anything, is wrong with the following arguments?:
>>
>> Argument #1
>> Premise 1: If the Judeo-Christian God
>
>There is an error right off the bat. There is no such thing as "the"
>"Judeo-Christian God:" there are the Jewish gods and the Christian
>gods. The two cults have totally different gods.
Do the Navajo people believe that their god/s tells them to "do to
others as you would have them do to you" or something similar?
Or are the Navajo god/s just uncaring and authoritarian and
terrifying, like all primitive gods?
---------------------
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
Mark K. Bilbo
Are you having fun?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
AC
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:53:17 +0000 (UTC), AC
><mightym...@yahoo.ca> posted in alt.atheism:
>
>>I don't really agree with this one. It seems like quibbling to me. I
>>consider that, based upon history and some of the more general conceptions,
>>Jews, Christians and Muslims all share the same god. Obviously, because of
>>differing traditions and theological leanings, how they view YHVH may
>>differ.
>
> Jews have a god who never had children. Christians have a god who had
> a son. Moslems have a god and they have the son, but not the
> connection between the two, Jesus merely being a normal human being
> who was a prophet.
All three claim to worship the God of Abraham. As an atheist, I see no
reason not to accept all three claims. It isn't as if, in my view of
things, any of them are right.
david ford
david ford:
> > Arguments 1 and 2 are modus tollens arguments--
> > if p, then q; not-q; therefore, not-p.
>
> Are you having fun?
Absolutely!
Mark K. Bilbo
That's good. I mean since you're not really communicating anything, it's
nice at least you're getting something out of... whatever it is...
catshark
wrote:
>"Mark K. Bilbo" <y...@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
Would you care to try for making sense?
You could start by really responding to John Wilkins here:
or: <http://tinyurl.com/2mtpm>
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
It is misleading for creationists to characterize science
in general and evolution in particular as "godless."
Science is godless in the same way that plumbing is godless.
- Robert T. Pennock -
david ford
david ford:
Your and Ryan's analyses are intriguing. Compare
Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1967. _The Biology of Ultimate
Concern_ (USA: The New American Library), 152pp. From
the last chapter, a paragraph on 120:
If evolution follows a path which is predestined
(orthogenesis), or if it is propelled and guided toward
some goal by divine interventions (finalism), then its
meaning becomes a tantalizing, and even distressing,
puzzle. If the universe was designed to advance toward
some state of absolute beauty and goodness, the design
was incredibly faulty. Why, indeed, should many
billions of years be needed to achieve the
consummation? The universe could have been created
in the state of perfection. Why so many false starts,
extinctions, disasters, misery, anguish, and finally the
greatest of evils-- death? The God of love and mercy
could not have planned all this. Any doctrine which
regards evolution as predetermined or guided collides
head-on with the ineluctable fact of the existence of evil.
Mark K. Bilbo
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:43:30 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford)
> wrote:
>
>>"Mark K. Bilbo" <y...@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
>>david ford:
>>
>>> > Arguments 1 and 2 are modus tollens arguments--
>>> > if p, then q; not-q; therefore, not-p.
>>>
>>> Are you having fun?
>>
>>Absolutely!
>
> Would you care to try for making sense?
>
But that's no fun!
Rev. Desertphile
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:42:25 +0000 (UTC), deser...@cchr.ws (Rev.
> Desertphile) wrote in message
> <buvku2$m945s$3...@ID-197010.news.uni-berlin.de>:
> >On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 03:30:46 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
> >ford) wrote:
> >> What, if anything, is wrong with the following arguments?:
> >>
> >> Argument #1
> >> Premise 1: If the Judeo-Christian God
> >There is an error right off the bat. There is no such thing as "the"
> >"Judeo-Christian God:" there are the Jewish gods and the Christian
> >gods. The two cults have totally different gods.
> Do the Navajo people believe that their god/s tells them to "do to
> others as you would have them do to you" or something similar?
Non sequitur
> Or are the Navajo god/s just uncaring and authoritarian and
> terrifying, like all primitive gods?
Non sequitur
> Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
speak thusly:
You know, native (American) concepts of "gods" is really different from
the ones that came from the other side of the planet. For one, there isn't
much in the way of "gods" at all. At least not that *I can find.
A lot of the stories I know of involve some powerful beings but I'm not
sure the common conception of a "god" fits so well. Maybe. But certainly
not the same one that fits the Judeo-Christian-Islamic conception(s).
Often, the creation stories involve the animals. Not some spiritual being.
A lot of the stories seem to hold that the first humans (like a first man
or first woman or both) end up as spirit beings (like stories about
Thunder which I have a fondness for, he seems to start out as the first
hunter).
Spiritual beings interact with humans at times. Often giving them
something (like the woman being in some stories who is the one who grows
the first corn and leaves that for people).
I have read some stories in which some being or other gets into a snit so
maybe you don't get rain. But it's more like your mom getting pissed at
you. The stories seem more about reconciliation rather than "punishment."
Dunno. It's a different view. Power strikes me as more a *neutral thing in
old native thought. Rather than "gods" there may be powerful beings but
they aren't *necessarily all that wrapped up in humans. And I have *never
run into any concept remotely approaching "hell." Afterlife, yes. Hell?
Nothing of the kind.
Far as the morals and ethics and who teaches that, those you usually find
in stories involving animals. Like trickster stories. Tricksters aren't
necessarily *bad. They're more often foolish. Counter examples.
The stories I'm aware of are often, oh, "instructive" but it's not so much
some moralistic being handing down The! Law! More examples of
people/animals who do the right thing or wrong thing and how that turns
out...
david ford
david ford:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y...@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
david ford:
> >> > Arguments 1 and 2 are modus tollens arguments--
> >> > if p, then q; not-q; therefore, not-p.
> >>
> >> Are you having fun?
> >
> >Absolutely!
>
> Would you care to try for making sense?
What are 2 posts of mine you couldn't make sense of?
John W. couldn't make sense of my theory of NS essay. Perhaps that'll
be 1 of the 2, for you.
> You could start by really responding to John Wilkins here:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22david+ford%22+author:john+author:wilkins&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm=1g7i6bc.m1z0nj1i4xijkN%25john.wilkins%40bigpond.com&rnum=6>
>
> or: <http://tinyurl.com/2mtpm>
>
> ---------------
> J. Pieret
> ---------------
>
> It is misleading for creationists to characterize science
> in general and evolution in particular as "godless."
> Science is godless in the same way that plumbing is godless.
>
> - Robert T. Pennock -
Dawkins and J. Huxley might disagree.
AC
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> david ford:
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <y...@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
> david ford:
>
>> >> > Arguments 1 and 2 are modus tollens arguments--
>> >> > if p, then q; not-q; therefore, not-p.
>> >>
>> >> Are you having fun?
>> >
>> >Absolutely!
>>
>> Would you care to try for making sense?
>
> What are 2 posts of mine you couldn't make sense of?
> John W. couldn't make sense of my theory of NS essay. Perhaps that'll
> be 1 of the 2, for you.
Have you ever considered that the problem is your's, rather than somebody
else's?
>
>> You could start by really responding to John Wilkins here:
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22david+ford%22+author:john+author:wilkins&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm=1g7i6bc.m1z0nj1i4xijkN%25john.wilkins%40bigpond.com&rnum=6>
>>
>> or: <http://tinyurl.com/2mtpm>
>>
>> ---------------
>> J. Pieret
>> ---------------
>>
>> It is misleading for creationists to characterize science
>> in general and evolution in particular as "godless."
>> Science is godless in the same way that plumbing is godless.
>>
>> - Robert T. Pennock -
>
> Dawkins and J. Huxley might disagree.
And they have a right to their views. That doesn't mean they're right. As
far as natural selection is concerned, it doesn't make a bit of difference.
catshark
wrote:
>catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>david ford:
>"Mark K. Bilbo" <y...@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
>david ford:
>
>> >> > Arguments 1 and 2 are modus tollens arguments--
>> >> > if p, then q; not-q; therefore, not-p.
>> >>
>> >> Are you having fun?
>> >
>> >Absolutely!
>>
>> Would you care to try for making sense?
>
>What are 2 posts of mine you couldn't make sense of?
You're the one that is supposed to make sense out of them.
>John W. couldn't make sense of my theory of NS essay.
No, what happened is that John recognised that *it* didn't make sense.
>Perhaps that'll
>be 1 of the 2, for you.
I've yet to find any of your posts that make full sense. There are those
lame threads where you ask disingenuous questions and the rest where you
just post "replies" (if any) consisting of old "essays" of yours with no
explanation as to what they are supposed to do with the issue at hand (with
none readily discernable).
>
>> You could start by really responding to John Wilkins here:
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22david+ford%22+author:john+author:wilkins&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm=1g7i6bc.m1z0nj1i4xijkN%25john.wilkins%40bigpond.com&rnum=6>
>>
>> or: <http://tinyurl.com/2mtpm>
You aren't going to reply to John are you? How about trying to make sense
of why not?
>>
>> ---------------
>> J. Pieret
>> ---------------
>>
>> It is misleading for creationists to characterize science
>> in general and evolution in particular as "godless."
>> Science is godless in the same way that plumbing is godless.
>>
>> - Robert T. Pennock -
>
>Dawkins and J. Huxley might disagree.
No, I doubt they would. Can you point to anywhere they said their atheism
was the result of scientific evidence and constituted a scientific theory?
Unless they did, their *beliefs* about god(s) are just that. They may feel
their beliefs are supported, or at least not contradicted, by the results
of science (i.e. Dawkin's comment about having a naturalistic explanation
for life *allowing* one to be an intellectually *fulfilled* atheist), but
that doesn't *make* those beliefs science, even in their own minds.
And even if they did say such a silly thing, they would simply be *wrong*.
Unlike gods, individual scientists are *allowed* to be wrong.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof.
- Ashley Montague -
Throatwarbler Mangrove
Desertphile) wrote in message
<bv4eda$o8tv7$1...@ID-197010.news.uni-berlin.de>:
>On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 04:06:56 +0000 (UTC), Raymond_...@tcht.com
>(Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:42:25 +0000 (UTC), deser...@cchr.ws (Rev.
>> Desertphile) wrote in message
>> <buvku2$m945s$3...@ID-197010.news.uni-berlin.de>:
>
>> >On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 03:30:46 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
>> >ford) wrote:
>
>> >> What, if anything, is wrong with the following arguments?:
>> >>
>> >> Argument #1
>> >> Premise 1: If the Judeo-Christian God
>
>> >There is an error right off the bat. There is no such thing as "the"
>> >"Judeo-Christian God:" there are the Jewish gods and the Christian
>> >gods. The two cults have totally different gods.
>
>> Do the Navajo people believe that their god/s tells them to "do to
>> others as you would have them do to you" or something similar?
>
>Non sequitur
I'll take that as a "no", then?
>
>> Or are the Navajo god/s just uncaring and authoritarian and
>> terrifying, like all primitive gods?
>
>Non sequitur
I'll take that as a "yes", then?
---------------------
SortingItOut
> God created us for fellowship with Him--for a mutual loving
> relationship. Love cannot be coerced. He could have created us as
> puppets to love Him. but real love must be given freely--so there must
> be freedom. Freedom brings choices, sin has consequences.
But choice does not *necessarily* require emotional baggage. God
could easily have created humans without emotional baggage, or with a
different set of emotional tendencies. Why is anger a required
component of choice? Or greed...or revenge...or even lust? These are
not required...we just happen to have them. We can have choice
without them. If God created us, he deliberately put these things in
our psyche. Why?
Ryan
"Ryan" <Ry...@NoSpam.net> wrote in message
news:yUKQb.11516$bg1.11458@fed1read05...
AC
You aren't very likely to get any meaningful response from David. At best
he'll give you some generic link to one of his "essays" or to some quotes he
mined from decades oldbooks.
david ford
> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 05:28:40 +0000 (UTC),
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > david ford:
> > "Mark K. Bilbo" <y...@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
> > david ford:
> >
> >> >> > Arguments 1 and 2 are modus tollens arguments--
> >> >> > if p, then q; not-q; therefore, not-p.
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you having fun?
> >> >
> >> >Absolutely!
> >>
> >> Would you care to try for making sense?
> >
> > What are 2 posts of mine you couldn't make sense of?
> > John W. couldn't make sense of my theory of NS essay. Perhaps that'll
> > be 1 of the 2, for you.
>
> Have you ever considered that the problem is your's, rather than somebody
> else's?
Nope. Do you have any posts of yours that you particularly like?
If "yes," what's a summary of your views in one of those
more favorite posts?
(BigDiscusser)
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
(BigDiscusser) wrote:
> Statistics show people of Christian faith are more healthy.
Uh, then why do most industrialized nations have life expectencies
higher than the US . . . . .
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
stew dean
> Statistics show people of Christian faith are more healthy. God
> bless, Jo Jean
More healthy than buddhists? Don't believe you.
Stew Dean
Ernest Major
<ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> writes
>JOJ...@webtv.net (\(BigDiscusser\)) wrote in message news:<7294-401C744C-
>2...@storefull-3256.bay.webtv.net>...
>> Statistics show people of Christian faith are more healthy. God
>> bless, Jo Jean
>
>
>Stew Dean
>
I hear that Mormons are healthier and longer lived than the average
American. I await Jo Jean's conversion.
--
alias Ernest Major
TomS
<uymnaHAR...@meden.demon.co.uk>, Ernest Major stated..."
I have also heard that about Seventh Day Adventists.
---Tom S.
All plants, from the beginning of the world, of the same kind are nothing but as
so many branches of the first plant or plants of that kind, proceeding ever
since ...
Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) "Things to be Considered and Written fully about"
Richard Forrest
On religion and health: A few statistics.
Countries are ranked by life expactancy, with major religions. Note
that the USA is no.29, between Slovenia and South Korea
1 Japan 73.5 Shintoist, Buddhist, Christian
2 Switzerland 72.5 Roman Catholic 46.1%, Protestant 40%, other 5%, no
religion 8.9%
3 San Marino 72.1 Roman Catholic
4 Sweden 71.6 Evangelical Lutheran 87%, Roman Catholic 1.5%,
Pentecostal 1%, other 3.5%
5 Australia 71.4 Anglican 26.1%, Roman Catholic 26%, other Christian
24.3%
6 Iceland 71.3 Church of Iceland (Evangelical Lutheran) 87.1%, other
Protestant and Roman Catholic 5.8%, other 7.1%
7 France 71.1 Roman Catholic 83%-88%, Protestant 2%, Islam 5%-10%,
Jewish 1%
8 Italy 70.9 Roman Catholic 98%, other 2%
9 Monaco 70.8 Roman Catholic 90%
10 Andorra 70.8 Roman Catholic
11 Spain 70.7 Roman Catholic 94%
12 Austria 70.7 Roman Catholic 78%, Protestant 5%, Islam and other 17%
13 Norway 70.7 Evangelical Lutheran 86% (state church), other
Protestant and Roman Catholic 36%, other 1%, none and unknown 10%
14 Greece 70.4 Greek Orthodox 98%, Islam 1.3%, other 0.7%
15 Luxembourg 70.3 Roman Catholic 97%, Protestant and Jewish 3%
16 New Zealand 70.1 Christian 81%, none or unspecified 18%, Hindu,
Confucian, and other 1%
17 Germany 70.1 Protestant 34%, Roman Catholic 34%, Islam 3.7%,
Unaffiliated or other 28.3%
18 Finland 69.9 Evangelical Lutheran 89%, Greek Orthodox 1%, none 9%,
other 1%
19 Denmark 69.8 Evangelical Lutheran 95%, other Protestant and Roman
Catholic 3%, other 2%
20 Netherlandsb 69.7 Roman Catholic 31%, Protestant 21%, Islam 4.4%,
other 3.6%, unaffiliated 40%
21 Canada 69.7 Roman Catholic 46%, United Church 16%, Anglican 10%
22 Belgium 69.6 Roman Catholic 75%
23 Israel 69.4 Judaism 80.1%, Islam 14.6%, Christian 2.1%, others 3.2%
24 United Kingdomb 69.2 Church of England (established church), Church
of Wales (disestablished), Church of Scotland (established
churchçśresbyterian), Church of Ireland (disestablished), Roman
Catholic, Methodist, Congregational, Baptist, Jewish
25 Malta 69.2 Roman Catholic 98%
26 Ireland 68.9 Roman Catholic 91.6%, Anglican 2.5%, other 5.9%
27 Singapore 68.5 Buddism (28%), Taoism (31%), Islam (18%),
Christianity (10%), Hinduism (4%)
28 Slovenia 67.5 Roman Catholic 70.8% (including 2% Uniate), Lutheran
1%, Islam 1%, other 27.2%
29 United States of Americab 67.4 Protestant, 56%; Roman Catholic,
28%; Jewish, 2%; other, 4%; none, 10%
30 Republic of Korea 67.2 Christian, 49%; Buddhist, 47%; Confucianist,
3%; Chondogyo (religion of the Heavenly Way) and other, 1% (1996 est.)
31 Portugal 66.8 Roman Catholic 94%, Protestant
32 Cuba 66.6 at least 85% nominally Roman Catholic before Castro
assumed power
33 Czech Republic 66.4 atheist 39.8%, Roman Catholic 39.2%, Protestant
4.6%, Orthodox 3%, other 13.4%
34 Cyprus 66.2 Greek Orthodox 78%, Sunni Muslim 18%, Maronite,
Armenian, Apostolic, Latin, and others 4% (1993 est.)
35 Chile 65.8 Roman Catholic 89%, Protestant 11%, small Jewish and
Muslim populations
So it looks as if Shintoism is the best bet for a long life, though
Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Lutherism rank a close second and
third
AC
> AC <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<slrnc1bujh.1jk....@namibia.tandem>...
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 05:28:40 +0000 (UTC),
>> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>> > catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > david ford:
>> > "Mark K. Bilbo" <y...@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
>> > david ford:
>> >
>> >> >> > Arguments 1 and 2 are modus tollens arguments--
>> >> >> > if p, then q; not-q; therefore, not-p.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Are you having fun?
>> >> >
>> >> >Absolutely!
>> >>
>> >> Would you care to try for making sense?
>> >
>> > What are 2 posts of mine you couldn't make sense of?
>> > John W. couldn't make sense of my theory of NS essay. Perhaps that'll
>> > be 1 of the 2, for you.
>>
>> Have you ever considered that the problem is your's, rather than somebody
>> else's?
>
> Nope. Do you have any posts of yours that you particularly like?
> If "yes," what's a summary of your views in one of those
> more favorite posts?
I don't go in for recursive posting of URLs to my own posts.
david ford
I wasn't asking you to do so.
AC
No David, I do not keep score of my posts. My views, I think, are perfectly
clear. I do not see any reason that, given the right conditions,
self-replicating molecules that evolved into primitive life could not have
arisen as part of explainable natural processes. Once primitive organisms
evolved, then evolution as we know it now could occur. Given 3.5 billion
years, multicellular life evolved, generation by generation, each only
slightly different from the last.
As an atheist, of course, I do not accept that any higher power(s) were
involved. This is not a scientific opinion, but just my own world view.
Since I have met a number of Christians, Jews, Hindus and pagans who also
accept that life developed due to natural processes, I can say that though
the basic notion of my world view, that there are no gods, is different than
their's, we all accept that life requires only the right starting conditions
and ingredients to get going.
Now maybe we're all wrong, David, and maybe you're right. However, if you
are, then all the biologists might as well just throw in the towel, head to
the nearest temple, mosque, church or synagogue, reject empericism and find
the magic incantation that works best. After all, that's all you've done.
I'm not even sure why you bother quote mining 80 year old books. Why not
just declare science wrong, God did it by powers beyond our imagining and go
in that direction? Why feign to us that you have science on your side? Is
it that important that you make it look like any researcher, no matter
qualifications or actual belief, appear to be on your side of the road?