[net.religion] God, Reagan and women

dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (08/22/84)

> [Robert Perlberg]
> Your logic is wrong.
> 
> Jeff's logic:
> 
> If God is personal, he has love, etc.
> God is not personal
> therefore, God does not have love.
> 
> Comparable example:
> 
> All women breath.
> Ronald Reagan is not a woman.
> therefore, Ronald Reagan does not breath.

Not comparable.  Jeff is assuming that love is an attribute of,
and only of, personal beings.  If a being is not personal, it
has (or is) none of the attributes of and only of personal beings.
Breathing is not an attribute of and only of women, hence the
examples are not comparable.

Of course, if you do not share the assumption regarding love
and personality, the examples are comparable.  Personally, I
think it is correct, but perhaps you can offer a counterexample?
-- 

Paul DuBois		{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist...
						Colossians 1:17

ab3@pucc-h (Rich Kulawiec) (08/24/84)

> From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP

>> [Robert Perlberg]
>> Your logic is wrong.
>> 
>> Jeff's logic:
>> 
>> If God is personal, he has love, etc.
>> God is not personal
>> therefore, God does not have love.
>> 
>> Comparable example:
>> 
>> All women breath.
>> Ronald Reagan is not a woman.
>> therefore, Ronald Reagan does not breath.

> Not comparable.  

[Following statements deleted as irrelevant.]

	Well, Jeff's logic *is* incorrect, and Robert is right, and this
can be shown without resorting to theology...

	I would like to cite that unamed middle-eastern philosopher who
appears on side 1 of "Monty Python & The Holy Grail", and who patiently
explains to us that "Elmer Cogan is dead; but only some of the class of
dead people are Elmer Cogan", thus neatly demonstrating non-conversion
of a proposition.

	Q.E.D.
-- 
---Rsk

UUCP: { decvax, icalqa, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs  } !pur-ee!rsk
      { decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk

It's better to burn out, than to fade away...