Re: Evolution: A Legoist Perspective

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 20:00:33 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John
Thomas Grisham) wrote:

>Padraic Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

>> >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.
>
>I didn't write the definitions.

Never said you did!

>Supernatural by definition is not natural, it's something else.

By definition, it is simply "above" or beyond what is natural.

>In science, the supernatural does not exist... 

Perhaps. Science doesn't really hold an opinion one way or the other
on the supernatural.

>it can not exist under
>Naturalism. Any evidence to anything supernatural would be an anomoly
>and thereby ignored. What puts out people who believe in God is that
>science labels their conceptualizations as Supernatural, therefore
>clearly anomolies and ignores them.

Not sure why that would bother theists. Science has no way of
evaluating their beliefs anyway - that's why they're ignored, not
because those believes are "supernatural" in nature.

>Any evidence of the supernatural can not be scientific evidence due to
>Naturalism. Ergo, supernatural = non-existent.

Not at all.

What does any of that have to do with UFOs?

Padraic.

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