Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: RICH ROSEN's preconceptions and presumptions.
Message-ID: <1089@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 16:57:13 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1089
Posted: Sun Nov 18 16:57:13 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Nov-84 05:08:25 EST
References: <258@pyuxd.UUCP> <314@qantel.UUCP>
Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 81

[]

>Where did I get my assumptions and presumptions about God?  Was I born with
>them?  I was born only with the knowledge of the difference between right and
>wrong.  And that punishment would come from wrong deeds.

You must have been a very unusual child.  From my own experience, and
from my memories of the behavior of my little brother and other small
children, it would appear that the typical human child is born with no 
sense of morality whatsoever, and without any knowledge of punishment to 
follow from moral infractions.  Tell me, weren't you ever punished for
doing something wrong as a child?

> ...
>You also keep asking for evidence.  I have two kinds of evidence while you
>only have one.
>
>I have the Bible.  It does take faith to believe it, I'll agree.  But I can't
>make you believe it.  Only the Spirit of God can do that.

Things taken only on faith do not constitute evidence about the nature
of reality, since they are not verifiable via *objective, repeatable*
experiments.

>  And I have the
>internal (I say from the Holy Spirit, you say from myself) evidences of peace
>and security, etc.

This is also not evidence.  We have no way of knowing for sure that 
you do in fact gain peace and security, etc.

>You however have science.  An entity that is allways changing as new facts are
>discovered.  A belief system that sets forth certain standards about the 
>universe, and in ten or twenty years, changes the rules because of some new
>discovery.

As opposed to a completely unadaptive system...

Entities which cannot adapt are prey to environmental changes.  A
system of beliefs which cannot change as new information becomes
available is liable to be proven false eventually, and thus be
destroyed as a viable entity.  A system which can change, however,
will be viable into the far future.

Why are you so resistant to change, anyway?  Is this the price of
your peace and security?

>You say that I use cyclical logic in saying that the Bible tells me the Bible
>is true, etc.  Well, you also use faulty logic.  Science tells you that science
>is right, doesn't it?

I don't know about Mr. Rosen, but I consider science to be reasonable
because it *works*, not because of what any person says about it.
Nothing in the bible has ever put more food on the table.  Agricultural
research, on the other hand, has.  This is, to my mind, an indication
that science has something to say about the nature of reality, whereas
christianity does not.

>  Either it does, or some subjective evidence does.  And
>if subjective evidence does, then might that subjective evidence contain 
>preconceptions, etc.?  I think it is possible.

What is "subjective evidence"?  Your statement contains (apparently)
contradictory terminology.

>So know it looks like we are down to who's supposed preconceptions are true.
>Well, nothing can convince you except the Spirit of God.  Anyway, I'll just
>leave it at this and wait for your comments, which I'm sure will be plentifull.

Nothing can convince *me* except hard evidence.  Do you have any way to
*show me beyond a shadow of a doubt* that the "Spirit of God" even exists?

>--
> Ken Nichols
> ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken

--
"Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
Ken Montgomery
...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA  [for Arpanauts only]