Re: Evolution: A Legoist Perspective

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:16:11 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John
Thomas Grisham) wrote:

>Padraic Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:13:57 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> (David W. Robertson) wrote:
>> 
>> >http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/dwr/d2.html
>> >
>> >The title of my essay is "Evolution: A Legoist Perspective".
>> 
>> Note misspelling of "legoist" (legioist) in the second line.
>> 
>> A theory based on Lego! I love it!
>> 
>> Naturally, your first stumbling block around here will be your
>> assumption that Gods exist. 
>
>Actually, he wrote "if God exists" 

True. The whole tenor of the essay seems to presume "yes, Gods exist",
however.

>I suggest that the line be changed to "if a superior natural entity
>exists".  This gets us passed the "supernatural" poppycock. Under the
>hypothesis that a deity could exist, it would be "natural" by
>definition. "Supernatural" for all practical purposes dictates
>non-existence.

Or may not - who knows? But that's rather the point: if one accepts
that Gods are "supernatural", then people like you will assume that
they're nonexistent figments. If one accepts that Gods are "superior
natural entities", then people who believe in Gods will be put out
because they dón't believe in "superior natural entities", but rather
in "supernatural" entities.

>For instance, when we speak of UFO's, we speak of them as
>"supernatural" because they are NOT accepted as existing. 

For what it's worth, I've never thought of them as "supernatural". And
I do not accept that supernatural = nonexistent.

Padraic.

la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu
ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.