Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 16)
Message-ID: <867@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-May-85 11:14:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.867
Posted: Wed May 15 11:14:51 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 05:28:15 EDT
References: <356@iham1.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 25

>        28.  If life is ultimately the result of random chance, then so
>             is  thought.   Your  thoughts--such  as  what  you are now
>             thinking--would in the final analysis be a consequence  of
>             accidents  and  therefore  would  have  no validity [a-c].
>             Similar  problems  have  been  acknowledged   by   several
>             prominent writers.

    Say what?  If we're the products of accidents, our thoughts would have
no validity?  You wouldn't mind providing us with the reasoning behind this
apparent non-sequitor?  (I looked at references [a-c] for this, but all 
they were was a bunch of old guys saying the same thing without providing
the reasoning either.)

    Without the reasoning behind it (which would be interesting, using
logical reasoning to show that logical reasoning is invalid.  <goedel
spinning in his grave>) the statement sounds suspiciously like: 'Without
God, my life would have no meaning.'

    I asked before, Ron, to please skip over the arguements in your list
which are so obviously invalid.  I guess you weren't listening.
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
     "I said, 'Doc, a world war passed through my brain.'
      He said, 'Nurse, grab your pad, the boy's insane.'"-Dylan