Re: Cobb County

Sorry, Ed, but your emotional response is beside the point. I challenge
anyone with a background in elementary modern logic to get out /Words and
Phrases/, a standard reference work for lawyers, and to look up the
logical connectives, and, and/or, or, if, if and only if, and not to be
appalled at what lawyers and judges have made of them. Lawyers are
trained to persuade. They are not witnesses, required to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This is clearly the situation
with Johnson, who insists that there is only one kind of naturalism. This
is false, but it's required for his case.

And no, I did not "in some illogical and backhanded way " call you a
liar. I made a general observation, something that applies universally. I
recognize that there are those who misrepresent facts because they don't
know any better. I recall a dear soul who believed that there was a
golden hen with golden chicks that fed on the bits of gold in the sands
of the river. My wife heard a mother declare, apropos of intestinal
parasites, "I don't believe in worms." There are even cases of invincible
ignorance, those who will (perhaps must) hold a view in spite of total
evidence to the contrary. My son was in China on business. In one of the
later cities visited, a native told him that their tea was the best. "But
the tea in X tastes better," he replied. "Yes, that's true, but everyone
knows that our tea is the best." There are others who deliberately twist
facts. I recently encountered salesmen who twisted some information and
made up other claims to make a sale more profitable to them. My
observation applies to all, innocent to guilty.
Dave

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:20:03 -0800 Edward Hassertt <ehassertt@mac.com>
writes:
D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:

Edward J. Hassertt wrote in part
So, if God did supernaturally acts, then the assumptions of
methodological naturalism are false and the foundations on which
scientific discoveries are based are nonexistent. If God does or did act
in the events of the universe in a supernatural way and science assumes a
priori that such actions are not present, then if they are present,
science will always miss describing the universe or its history
accurately.

If we a priori exclude the possibility of discovering supernatural
signatures in science, is that really science? How can one claim that
certain types of evidence will always be ignored or interpreted to mean
something else just because of a presupposition of methodological
naturalism?

 
This is a typical lawyer approach, distort matters so that the unwary are
seduced by nonsense.
And this is typical of children, matching an honest discussion with
childish insults. Are you capable of an adult conversation or is
everything you post a bunch of hateful, abusive and unChristlike insults?
 

The exclusion of supernatural acts is scientism, not science,
metaphysical naturalism, not methodological.
Well, if you read the post I was responding too, that is exactly what was
said.

This is something every honest scholar recognizes. What scientists qua
scientists (for there are dogmatic materialists among them, as among
nonscientists) recognize is that they cannot deal with supernatural acts.
However, scientists may recognize that God is active in every event. This
includes the natural, as was recognized by Luther who spoke of natural
laws as the masks of God.

Pagans, including Wiccans, could hold a theory whereby the supernatural
could be examined scientifically, for they hold that the powers can be
controlled by charms, incantations, spells, curses, etc. A true theist,
in contrast, cannot scientifically demonstrate the free acts of God.
There are some silly preachers who declare that God must return to the
giver tenfold (or whatever) everything given to them, and there is the
name it claim it gang. But prayer does not control and compel God. It
includes supplication and thanksgiving, to be sure. But it should
emphasize praise and, most importantly, trust. "God, ya gotta" is not
orthodox.

There is no "presupposition of methodological naturalism" involved,
except in a twisted view. There is a necessary restriction to
manipulation of the natural, and that limited. No scientist can turn off
gravity or decrease the entropy of a closed system. She has to work
within the natural parameters. If she's an atheist, she'll claim that's
all there is. A pagan will claim that there are all kinds of spirit
powers behind nature. A Christian will quote Colossians 1:17. The
scientific observations are the same for all, but the philosophy and
theology are different and incompatible.

There is a vital principle that I wish were more widely observed: one
cannot serve God with a lie. A mistake he will pardon and, I trust, turn
to his glory. He knows we are fallible. But repeating a falsehood after
it has been corrected makes one an ally of Satan.
Dave
Are you in some illogical and backhanded way accusing me of being a liar?

-- 
.........................................................................
..............
The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between
classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every
human heart   -  Alexander Solzhenitsyn
.........................................................................
..............
Edward J. Hassertt
Reason By Faith
Auburn, Washington
http://www.reasonbyfaith.org
Christian Legal Discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/advocatusdeus/