<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2769" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff background="">
<DIV><FONT size=4>
<DIV>Donovan educates us:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>"The question implies falsely that <STRONG><FONT
color=#ff0000>"GOD" and "GOOD"</FONT></STRONG> are two separate independent
entities. They are not. <STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>They are the same
thing.</FONT></STRONG>"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> <BR> </DIV></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[1] At the risk of appearing to be impolite
(very out of character), the above statements attempting to transfer Donovan's
superior wisdom to we Neanderthals, appear, like some of his other statements,
to belong to that class of linguistic anomalies which includes the
following:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>"Barbequed integers forge Jesus"</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>However, for the sake of the argument below, let us assume
that Donovan has presented an intelligible statement.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[2] It is also obvious that in
asserting <FONT color=#ff0000>"God and Good are the same thing."</FONT>,
Donovan is making a knowledge claim. However, he offers no evidence or
proof for the truth of this sweeping statement with its titanic
ontological import. While Donovan may be <FONT
color=#0000ff><STRONG>Moscow's Foremost Authority</STRONG></FONT>, I, for one
being old and slow-witted, would have appreciated some evidence/proof for the
truth of the statement.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>However, in order to give Donovan as much credibility and
consideration as charitably possible, let us ignore the two above
problems.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[3] Preliminary observation: Suppose
it were asserted that Guido and Nathan are the same person. Then in any
non-meta-language statement about either, the words, "Guido" and "Nathan" are
interchangeable without changing the meaning/import or truth conditions of
the statement. Example:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>If "Guido smells like a decayed muskrat." is true, then
"Nathan smells like a decayed muskrat." is also true. Further, both
statements have the same meaning and the same truth conditions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>To assist Michael in his spiritual development we will
now use the inductive method, which he highly recommended earlier, to test
Donovan's hypothesis.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Briefly: The inductive method includes
testing a hypothesis by deducing expected observations from it. The truth
of the statements embodying the expected observations are tested. If even
one of statements embodying an expected observation is false, then the
hypothesis is false by <EM>Modus Tollens</EM> <A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens</A>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Here we go!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Hypothesis: <FONT color=#ff0000>God and Good are the
same thing.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Deductions from hypothesis: If <FONT color=#ff0000>God
and Good are the same thing, </FONT><FONT color=#000000>then the words <FONT
color=#ff0000>"God"</FONT> and <FONT color=#ff0000>"Good"</FONT> can be used
interchangeably (as in the example above) in statements without any change of
meaning or truth conditions.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Hence, the following resultant statements have the same
meaning and truth conditions as their obvious originals:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Default">"...and
<STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>good</FONT> </STRONG>saith, Let light be; and
light is. </SPAN>And <FONT color=#ff0000><STRONG>good</STRONG></FONT>
seeth the light that </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Default"><I>it
is</I></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Default"> <FONT
color=#ff0000><STRONG>God</STRONG></FONT>..." <FONT size=4>[Young's Literal
Translation of the Bible]</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Default">
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Default">"My
country is the world, and my religion is to do <FONT
color=#ff0000><STRONG>God</STRONG></FONT>." <FONT size=4>[Thomas
Paine]</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><FONT size=3>"Every religion is good that teaches man to be
<FONT color=#ff0000><STRONG>God</STRONG></FONT>."</FONT> [Thomas
Paine]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>"<STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>Good damn</FONT></STRONG>! That was a
<STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>God</FONT></STRONG> piece of ash."
<STRONG>[Calvin Lane III]</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Hmmm.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Interchanging the words <FONT color=#ff0000>"God"</FONT> and
<FONT color=#ff0000>"Good"</FONT> in the original statements appears to
change their meaning and truth conditions in the resultant statements.
Hence, the deduction from the hypothesis that the original statements and their
substituted resultants would mean the same and have the same truth
conditions is false. Applying <EM>Modus Tollens</EM>...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><STRONG><FONT size=6>Alas then, the hypothesis is
false.</FONT></STRONG> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Back to the drawing board, Donovan.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=4>{Note to readers: Feel free to post your
favorite statements resulting from substitutions.}</FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Donovan boasts:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>"We already went over this in junior college."<BR> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Note to Donovan: Perhaps you should sue your
junior college for malpractice.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Note to Michael: To increase the probability of success
in your spiritual journey, avoid Donovan's junior college and like
institutions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Fresh from seeing a very large great-horned owl,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> <BR><FONT size=4>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<BR></FONT><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"><FONT size=4>deco@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT size=4>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "Donovan Arnold"
<donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com><BR>To: "Art Deco" <deco@moscow.com>;
"Vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com><BR>Sent: Wednesday, November 02,
2005 5:59 PM<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Is John Calvin an
Intolerista?<BR><BR><BR>> Wayne,<BR>> <BR>> What you fail to understand
is that the genius of the<BR>> quote:<BR>> <BR>> "Is X good because God
says so or does God says so<BR>> because X is (intrinsically) good.,"<BR>>
<BR>> is the not the answer, which is obvious, what is<BR>> genius is in
the creation of the question.<BR>> <BR>> The question implies falsely that
"GOD" and "GOOD" are<BR>> two separate independent entities. They are not.
They<BR>> are the same thing. <BR>> <BR>> We already went over this in
junior college. <BR>> <BR>> DJA<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> --- Art Deco <deco@moscow.com> wrote:<BR>> <BR>>>
Neither Michael nor Donvan apparently understand the<BR>>> problem created
by:<BR>>> <BR>>> "Is X good because God says so or does God says
so<BR>>> because X is <BR>>> (intrinsically) good."<BR>>>
<BR>>> The first extant extended discussion of this dilemma<BR>>>
occurred in Plato's <BR>>> dialogue<BR>>> <BR>>> Euthyphro
<BR>>> http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html<BR>>>
<BR>>> Anthony Flew is one modern philosopher who has<BR>>> talked
about this dilemma.<BR>>> <BR>>> If Donovan, Michael, or anyone else
wish to gain<BR>>> some insight into this <BR>>> problem, then they
should first read and understand<BR>>> what transpires in <BR>>>
Euthyphro.<BR>>> <BR>>> After that, they may wish to read some of
Anthony<BR>>> Flew's many remarks on <BR>>> this
subject.<BR>>> <BR>>> To find such remarks, Google:<BR>>>
<BR>>> Euthyphro "anthony flew"<BR>>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<BR>>> deco@moscow.com<BR>>>
<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> ----- Original Message -----
<BR>>> From: "Donovan Arnold"<BR>>>
<donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com><BR>>> To: "Michael"
<metzler@moscow.com>;<BR>>>
<vision2020@moscow.com><BR>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005
4:11 PM<BR>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Is John Calvin an<BR>>>
Intolerista?<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> > "X is good because God
says so and God says so<BR>>> because<BR>>> > X is intrinsically
good. Seems like one just<BR>>> comes<BR>>> > along with
the other with an eternal Trinity. <BR>>> Right?"<BR>>> > ---
Michael Metzler<BR>>> ><BR>>> > Well put Michael. Many do not
get they are the<BR>>> same.<BR>>> > All things obedient to God's
will are good, and<BR>>> things<BR>>> > against it are evil. Good
cannot go against God's<BR>>> will<BR>>> > by definition of the
term "Good". Wayne's question<BR>>> is<BR>>> > like asking us to
draw two parallel lines that<BR>>> > intersect or to describe a circle
that has a<BR>>> radius<BR>>> > greater than its
circumference.<BR>>> ><BR>>> > --DJA<BR>>>
><BR>>> ><BR>>> >> Wayne Wrote:<BR>>>
>><BR>>> >><BR>>> >><BR>>> >> "you
have ignored the problem discussed by Plato<BR>>> and<BR>>> >>
recently discussed on<BR>>> >> this forum:<BR>>>
>><BR>>> >><BR>>> >><BR>>> >> Is X
good merely because god says so or does god<BR>>> say<BR>>> >>
so because X is<BR>>> >> (intrinsically) good?<BR>>>
>><BR>>> >><BR>>> >><BR>>> >> W. T.
Jones also discusses this problem in his<BR>>> >> chapters on
Plato."<BR>>> >><BR>>> >><BR>>>
>><BR>>> >><BR>>> >><BR>>> >>
Me:<BR>>> >><BR>>> >><BR>>> >><BR>>>
>> This is a good example of how the Classical<BR>>> >>
Christian God is a good way to<BR>>> >> address the more general
problems of any god-x. <BR>>> X<BR>>> >> is good because God
says<BR>>> >> so and God says so because X is
intrinsically<BR>>> good.<BR>>> >> Seems like one
just<BR>>> >> comes along with the other with an eternal<BR>>>
Trinity.<BR>>> >> Right?<BR>>> >><BR>>>
>><BR>>> >><BR>>> >> --Michael Metzler<BR>>>
>><BR>>> >><BR>>> >><BR>>> >>
><BR>>> ><BR>>><BR>>
_____________________________________________________<BR>>> >>
List services made available by First Step<BR>>> >>
Internet,<BR>>> >> serving the communities of the Palouse
since<BR>>> 1994.<BR>>> >><BR>>>
>>
http://www.fsr.net<BR>>> >><BR>>>
>>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>> >><BR>>>
><BR>>><BR>>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<BR>>>
>><BR>>> ><BR>>> ><BR>>> ><BR>>>
><BR>>> > __________________________________<BR>>> > Yahoo!
FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in<BR>>> one click.<BR>>>
> http://farechase.yahoo.com<BR>>> ><BR>>>
><BR>>><BR>>
_____________________________________________________<BR>>> > List
services made available by First Step<BR>>> Internet,<BR>>> >
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>>>
>
http://www.fsr.net<BR>>>
>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>> ><BR>>><BR>>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<BR>>>
><BR>>> > <BR>>> <BR>>><BR>>
_____________________________________________________<BR>>> List
services made available by First Step<BR>>> Internet, <BR>>>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>>>
<BR>>>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>>>
<BR>>>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>><BR>>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<BR>>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> __________________________________ <BR>>
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 <BR>>
http://mail.yahoo.com<BR>> <BR>></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>