Re: A neat syllogism
George Murphy ("firstname.lastname@example.org"@raex.com)
Sat, 27 Nov 1999 21:01:21 -0500
BILL SAIED wrote:
> 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 will
> be no embarassment, just the joy of seeing a fascinating syllogism when I am
> 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?
Even with a qualification such as "physical life", 2 is problematic. Defining
"life" in a way which doesn't include things we don't normally consider "alive" is
notoriously difficult. 2 would seem to include crystal growth & conceivably even stars
George L. Murphy