Re: A neat syllogism

Adam Crowl (
Fri, 26 Nov 1999 12:52:53 PST


Glenn you are being tricky with this one...

>From: "BILL SAIED" <>
>To: <>
>Subject: A neat syllogism
>Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 10:46:42 -0600
>I am sending this from my Father-in-laws, so please when you reply, simply
>reply to the list.
>I have a neat syllogism that I want to share with the group. I want to do
>it as a game. Preferably I would like anti-evolutionists to play. THere
>be no embarassment, just the joy of seeing a fascinating syllogism when I
>finished. I will lay out two of the premises and ask for agreement or
>disagreement. Those willing to take a risk and grant or deny acceptance of
>these two postulates get to play the game.
>The two postulates are,
>1. God created life
>2. Life is defined as a self-replicative system of chemicals. Everything
>else is non-life.
>Do you agree or disagree with these two postulates?
>Glenn Morton
So God isn't alive then? If we accept (2) then that fllows from any
non-material definition of God. Of course if we accept both and replicating
chemicals are found/made and seem quite simple outcomes of chemistry, then
chemistry is God, or God doesn't need a "miracle" to make life...

very clever


Get Your Private, Free Email at