Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Fred Mertz)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Marhcionni on assumptions
Message-ID: <453@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Feb-85 19:32:24 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.453
Posted: Fri Feb  1 19:32:24 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 12:45:58 EST
References: <1552V6M@PSUVM>
Organization: Pristine Area
Lines: 48

> Do I understand the assumptions behind my arguments??? Well that is why I
> try to cite my sources. I don't want the reader to assume too much.

You don't explain why you assume the veracity of your arbitrary sources
(the bible).  That's one assumption you would apparently prefer that the
reader does assume.

> The problem here is that Rich considers invalid the assumption and or belief
> in the SUPERNATURAL (I think) especially God.

I'm NOT going to ask for the one hundred and n-th time to explain what is
meant by "supernatural" as somehow distinguished from natural.  Wingate
wouldn't do it.  DuBois wouldn't do it.  Dubuc wouldn't do it.  Sargent
wouldn't do it.  Bickford wouldn't do it.  Why should I expect YOU to do it?
If natural is defined as "what we can observe", and supernatural that which
is beyond "what we can observe", doesn't that make microorganisms part of the
supernatural (at least before the invention of the microscope when humans
couldn't observe them)?  If supernatural is RE-defined as "all we can EVER
observe", isn't that a bit presumptuous; first to assume that you have
knowledge of the demarcation of a boundary of the ultimate limits of human
observation, second to assume that one necessarily must exist!  If natural
is RE-defined to simply mean "all of that which IS", what is beyond the
natural, what lies in the "supernatural"?  The first definition is arbitrary
and anthropocentric, the second is presumptuous in the extreme, and the
third says there's no such thing as the supernatural:  anything existing in
the universe (or out of the universe---who defines THOSE limits??) that has
some effect on physical objects is doing so by physical means.  In what way
would ANY such effect be taking place by NON-physical means, except by
arbitrary exclusion from the definition "physical"?  OK, I *am* asking it.
But I don't expect to see an answer.

> I believe in it and I think that I have sufficient evidence to support it.
> NO I don't have his phone number. Arndt does though ask him... :-)
> It is going to be difficult to get past Rich's objection since most of
> my arguments stem from that.

If you HAD sufficient evidence you would have provided it.  Most of my
arguments stem from that because most of your unwarranted assumptions stem from
that.

> AS FOR YOU BORN AGAINS SAYING THAT WE RC'S HAVE BEEN LED ASTRAY?  ARGHHHHH!!!!
> Gimme a break it's badd enough that I get it from Rosen!!! :-)

Yeah, it certainly would be nice if they just realized that you were right and
they were wrong, wouldn't it?
-- 
"Pardon me for breathing which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bothered
 to mention it--Oh, God, I'm so depressed."		Rich Rosen  pyuxd!rlr