>-----Original Message-----
>From: John W Burgeson [mailto:burgytwo@juno.com]
>Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 5:25 PM
>To: glenn.morton@btinternet.com; asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Fw: RE: Comet Orbits
>
>
>Sometimes, Gleen, I think you and I must inhabit different planets.
>
>On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:53:22 -0000 "Glenn Morton"
><glenn.morton@btinternet.com> writes:
>> Hi Burgy,
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with pointing out the logical consequences of
>> an
>> opponent's position.
>
>That is true. I think I said exactly that several times before.
Then you shouldn't deny one the ability to do so with the deceptive Gossean
God.
>
>What you are doing with your claim that no YEC
>> argues
>> for a deceptive God is the same as saying that we can't point out
>> the
>> logical consequences to someone who holds a wierd view.
>
>Not at all the same. That is your inference. When I say "no YEC argues
>for a DG, that is simply a statement of fact. Nothing more. What you can
>argue back to him is simply not addressed.
Yes, my friend, I think we do inhabit different universes. :-) I don't see
the point of chiding me for pointing out the deceptiveness of their god and
then saying that you are merely pointing out a statement of fact. Here is
our exchange.
>>>Glenn wrote: "
But then the question immediately arises--Is God capable of decieving us
about the plan of salvation? oooh--that is a bad question but the
logical
outcome of a deceptive God."
[you replied]:
That question ONLY arises if someone makes the claim of a deceptive god.
Nobody, AFAIK, makes that claim. At least not in the context of
an origins hypothesis.<<<<
end of exchange
What I don't get is what your statement about the question only arising if
someone makes a claim of a deceptive God means in that context. If it wasn't
meant to say that one can't criticize a YEC for a Gossean God and was merely
a statement of fact, why is that statement of fact relevant to the
discussion? I really don't see it. It seems like a logical deduction that a
God who makes things appear to happen which in fact didn't, is deceptive.
>
>But I also claim, of course, that you cannot make the argument to him
>that he has accepted a DG. In point of fact, I think most YECs have not.
I agree that YECs havenn't explicitly said that God is deceptive. But they
make him implicitly deceptive. It is an inconsistency in their position.
>Gosse certainly did not. Yes -- the DG argument is (was) appropriate
>against Gosse's claims, but only after (IMHO) one had read how he had
>addressed the issue within his book.
And how many YECs do you think have read the book? I am not making the
charge against Gosse, but against modern YECs.
>My argument to such a person would be along the lines of what set of
>physical laws could he propose which would support his claim.
I would say that the modern YEC would appeal to no laws so he wouldn't try.
I might
>also suggest that the set of physical laws we now accept as invariant
>makes his claim untrue.
People like Baumgardner, Humphreys etc. actually say that the laws are not
invariant--so not accepting that assumption, this argument is meaningless
with them.
The "fly off the earth" just is an embellishment
>of that, I think.
Agreed, partly.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 19 2001 - 13:28:27 EST