[Hylean]

(Original post by Flash7)
Let's start by getting rid of the "we can't comprehend God's plan" arguement. If we use this arguement, we can never have a real debate. Instead, let's agree that if we are going to debate, we have to have certain boundries in which we abide by.

Oh, so, as long as we use your definitions without quibble, that's fine, but to suggest a being might have different definitions is not a real debate?

And note, I've never said we can't comprehend God's plan, just that we can't arbitrarily decide that because we find it unjust that it is so.

(Original post by Flash7)
I would ask, what's wrong with God appearing in front of everone? You would argue that it would rid us of our free will and choice to believe. I would argue that it would not. Do we in society know of our laws and yet still choose to accept and abide by them or disobey them? This has not negated our ability to choose. We still have free will. If God appeared before all man and stated that he is the allmighty God then and only then would Hell be justifiable. Otherwise, hell would be an unfair punishment for God's lack of supporting evidence to believe in him in the first place.

Ah yes, because so many people would choose to burn in Hell fire for eternity over eternal paradise... Yea, somehow I doubt it. And again, it would negate the whole coming to God willingly aspect, asHe had to force our hands by appearing.

Moreover, God would constantly have to do it, for every single human born.

That you might think the punishment is unfair, despite being told of the consequences, doesn't necessarily make it so in God's eyes.

(Original post by Flash7)
You had mentioned that God had revealed himself several times. Let's say that he revealed himself to Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. There's a problem with this line of reasoning. First, it has led to many different religions, none of which is to God's benefit. Secondly, why would god continue to implore in a system that has proven to fail? If he saw that it didn't work with Adam, Abraham and then with Moses, etc... why continue in this manner? Each time, God miraculously appeared to some individual secretly and was told to go forth and spread my message. I think if God was really smart, he would do his own good work and not pawn it off on a carpenter, or an illiterate man. As stated earlier, if God loved us equally, he would give us an equal chance to make it into heaven, or at the least, a chance to stay out of Hell.

Before we even begin this debate, you should go and learn who Jesus actually was, or is meant to be anyway in Christianity.

Maybe, just maybe, God realises that no matter what He does, there will always be people who deny Him and seek to distort the message.

[Kosmos]

(Original post by Hylean)
Ah, so because you can't discern the point of the test, it mustn't exist?

Simply put, if God had to reveal Himself, He would be doing it endlessly, as each generation would refuse to believe the revelation had been real. Moreover, constantly revealing Himself means that the test is invalidated, as humans will no longer come of their own will to Him, but out of fear of the consequences.

I'm stating that the "test" is ridiculous as I have said above.

No, he would be doing it to each person individually which would make the evidence fair on everyone. You claim that "each generation" would refuse to believe the revelation had been real, on the contrary, if each culture or generation aligns with the evidence that is purported by everyone from the previous then that would delineate that god exists, but he wouldn't do so, all he would need to do is show himself to everyone individually and then each individual can say what they experienced and if everyone's experience aligns with each other then that would be enough evidence. Or, probably a better bit of evidence, would be to create a book with what god has said which says everything clearly with rules which are unalterable, therefore the book would have been constructed from material that proves god.

How is the test invalidated? You still have the free will to follow him or deny him, when "he" came to the disciples they followed him and judas was shown apparently clear evidence but he still "chose" to not follow which shows that there is still a "test". Out of fear of the consequences? But stating that hell exists doesn't breed fear at all?

(Original post by Hylean)

Which then involves explaining, fuel, electricity, etc. Really, to people at that time, it would've taken too much time to convey the information from God to the prophet and then for the prophet to explain all these wondrous things that didn't exist. Moreover, we assume that given the huge stretch of time that possible evidence may not have been removed because it wasn't understood.

Then of course, you've got the wonderful argument Muslims constantly bring up about the scientific "proofs" in their book, which are still debated today.

So, your response doesn't work, especially as it seems to ignore the dating of my example.

Of course it wouldn't have, explaining fuel, electricty etc. have evidence that can be confirmed regardless of what age you are in. For example, Erastothenes found out that the earth was round by using measurements and a method which if followed would show that it is, all people needed to do was to replicate this in order to show that it is true and that is why it has survived since now because it is true.

On the contrary, it would have been incredibly easy too if god was involved but these are the works of men who have made up such fables and persistent embellishments because of the nature of the transmission as well as the original story, remember from the story of God's revelation to Mohammed, he was told to write everything down from the angel Gabriel, but the "science" from the Qu'ran was taken from the works of the Ancient Greeks. However, if the Qu'ran had mentioned inventions of electricity it wouldn't mean it was revelation, they could have quite easily discovered it and documented it.

But if it was from god, he would have supposedly protected this information as he seemed to have done with the Ark of the Covenant, whosoever touched the ark would be killed, this obviously shows the work of the divine is a possible measure to convey truth, which can be achievable.

(Original post by Hylean)

Really, they managed to write and create philosophies quite well. So much for "illiterate" and "didn't know how to critical think".

And, in all fairness, there is nothing "in fact" about mental illnesses and spirits except for the documented cases.

If they wanted stability and hope, having a religion where it's so easy to be damned is not the best way and there are far better religions out there for that kind of thing.

See above for the rest of it.

It's weird because even though you have my response in front of you, you didn't realize that I said semi-literate and yes didn't know how to critically think, hence all the mythological explanations for things that have been explained by science as part of the natural world. i.e. leprosy is not the cause of the spirits inhabiting you or from the sins of your father, it is a disease. Notice I didn't say everyone in the ancient world was semi-literate, I mentioned only the scribes of the biblical narrative because these peoples were poor, Christianity wasn't big at all in the first century (Read Bart Ehrman) it had adherents that were principally jewish before, due to the lack of wealthy figureheads or benefactors, the scribes would have been semi-literate and therefore the scriptures wouldn't have been interpreted accurately.

They clearly believed that people who were mentally ill were inhabited by spirits, for example, the Roman Emperor Caligula was judged by those who were under him as being possessed by spirits as chronicled by later Judeo-Christians, but we know as he was struck down by a sudden illness coupling with his horrendous upbringing due to Tiberius, that he had suffered a mental illness proclaiming that he was a deity and that he had declared war on Poseidon.

"If they wanted stability and hope, having a religion where it's so easy to be damned is not the best way" On the contrary, these people believed that it was true because of the benefits the religion had, i.e the social cohesion and security which was unavailable as well as the doctrine of Christianity far suiting their social standing and their hatred of the upper classes (See Richard Carrier's Not the Impossible Faith) Jesus over-coming the Jewish Sanhedrin and the Romans by his resurrection would have been something that would have been something that they would have desired. But they believed in the religion so the damnation wouldn't have been applicable to them, the entry requirements for becoming a Christian was far easier than other religions, i.e. Judaism required following the strict rules as well as circumcision, all Christianity required was to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour as well as bringing about the benefits that I have discussed. Remember the only other religions that were apparent at this time were the various Roman sects which were usually adopted by the Roman elite, Christianity sold an idea which would have been politically pleasing to the adherents.

(Original post by Hylean)

Only if the aim of the game is to save as many souls as possible. Maybe God's the kind of parent who wants to see us grow and decide for ourselves without constant micromanaging.

"most scholars believe" =/= "is well known" under any definition. "Influence" doesn't mean "taken from".

Eschatology and demonology =/= Hell.

And, no, you can't prove that, given the dodgy evidence for either religion beyond a certain point. You can make an educated guess, but that's not the same as proof.

You can speculate on the intentions of this god, if that was his intention why would he have created hell or heaven and clearly state that the only way to reach heaven or else burn in the fires of hell, that's not what a caring parent who wants us to mature would create. I don't know what parents you know, unless you cite Josef Fritzl as your parent. If the stakes of a soul is eternal hellfire then I'd suppose he'd do a lot more than minuscule credulous scripture.

But it's indicative from the consensus of historians and scholars that it did borrow it's concepts. The concepts of Judaism change right after the Babylonian Exile when open to Zoroastrianism, it used to be Sheol and now it's hellfire. The devil also is never mentioned until after the Babylonian exile. I suggest you read up on scholars who purport this rather than blankly disregarding it because you can't be bothered to read the evidence.

You blankly disregard the equivalence of eschatology and demonology with hell, but have you bothered to read the article and the evidence before disregarding it as not being the equivalent?

The dodgy evidence, how is it in any case dodgy, we know the teachings of the koran changed after the Babylonian exile, we can see the transition of philosophy before and after as it is clearly shown to change. That's proof.

(Original post by Hylean)

You make a lot of statements not supported by the scholarship. The scholars make guesses, what you've stated here are not facts, have not been proven, and you've twisted quite a lot to make it sound a lot worse than it is.

Nonetheless, you've still failed to disprove the deity-concept.

Every point I have made, in the historical context, has been supported by the scholarship. In the terms of theological disputation I am stating my opinion on the ridiculous nature of supporting such scripture. By the way, I'm not stating that God does not exist, I can't do that at all, but there's no evidence to suggest he does. I have twisted nothing to make it sound a lot worse than it is, everything I've stated is either based on evidence or me showing the ridiculous nature of religion. However, I am inclined to believe that if religion were to be true and they claim an omnibenevolent god, then it would be one without hell, but that is my opinion of course.

Scholars don't make guesses, they make informed judgments based on the evidence, the evidence for jesus is shockingly scarce considering we have no eyewitness testimony, no historian documenting his existence during his supposed existence as well as after, which of the ones known are interpolations. Those that purport he is the son of god is religious doctrine written years after his death by semi-literates and in scarce supply and are not eyewitnesses but base their story on hearsay whose only purpose is to convince the reader. The "evidence" is on par with any other religious doctrine at the time or prior to it, the greco-roman events such as the works of Homer can easily be believed based on the criteria that people believe are documentation of Jesus.

I can't disprove with absolute certainty that this specific deity does not exist because that's impossible, I can't prove that leprechauns or unicorns can't exist absolutely. But you can clearly see how this conception is modeled upon mankind's ideals.

[Flash7]

(Original post by Hylean)
Oh, so, as long as we use your definitions without quibble, that's fine, but to suggest a being might have different definitions is not a real debate?

And note, I've never said we can't comprehend God's plan, just that we can't arbitrarily decide that because we find it unjust that it is so.




Ah yes, because so many people would choose to burn in Hell fire for eternity over eternal paradise... Yea, somehow I doubt it. And again, it would negate the whole coming to God willingly aspect, asHe had to force our hands by appearing.

Moreover, God would constantly have to do it, for every single human born.

That you might think the punishment is unfair, despite being told of the consequences, doesn't necessarily make it so in God's eyes.




Before we even begin this debate, you should go and learn who Jesus actually was, or is meant to be anyway in Christianity.

Maybe, just maybe, God realises that no matter what He does, there will always be people who deny Him and seek to distort the message.

You make the arguement that if God appears to all mankind, that we would follow his rules out of fear of Hell. I would argue two things. First, as it currently stands, we do not know God, talk to God, or see God. In essence, in order to stay out of Hell, we blindly follow God and call it faith. So we are essentially obeying God because of the fear of Hell and not because of our love for a God that does not have a relationship with us. (Please don't say that you talk to Jesus and have a relationship with him. There's no sense in discussion if that's what we're dealing with).

Secondly, both the bible and the Qu'ran have given examples of people that have known God, but still chose to disobey him, thus proving that free will can still exist. Here are examples: Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt through the desert. They, on a first hand account saw all of the miracles and power that their God had, and when Moses went up the mountain, the Israelites sinned and built an idol of a golden ox. Another account would be Judas who betrayed Jesus even though he had seen and heard all that Jesus had to say. Saul sinned against God, and King David sinned against God, although both were annointed by God. So it has been shown in both books that free will can still exist if God shows himself to you. You cannot refute this if you believe in the Bible and the Qu'ran.

You mentioned that God would have to appear to everyone in every generation. I think that if God is ever present, does not have any limits, is all-knowing, this should be relatively easy. Why would this be so difficult? If God created us all, then why not while he creates us, gives us an inate belief in him, thus proving his existence, and giving everyone a fair chance to understand him and his will. As mentioned before, we would still have our "free will."

By the way, I do know who Jesus is thought to be. He is another story alltogether. Why would Jesus have to exist? It's because when Adam and Eve were created and they disbeyed God's demand not to eat from the tree of knowledge, sin was introduced into the world. The price of Sin is death. So Jesus, the son of God was brought down to earth to free mankind by dying and thus breaking the cycle. But who's law demands that the price of Sin is death? God's law. So in order to break his own law, he, the Father, gave his son to die for the sins of man. If he wanted to break his own law, why not just change the rules? It's cheating either way. You can't make up a rule and then create a way around your own rule. This is a dilema isn't it? It appears that this is more the writings of men, rather the word of God, doesn't it?

[garfeeled]

(Original post by Hylean)
Why is it a flaw?

because greed is natural a flaw. it is unhealthy. Greed for money, power, food all cause problems. Greed for food leads to obesity whilst greed for money and power has lead people to murder and torture. Thusly greed is a flaw.
selfishness is also a flaw. selfishness not only damages other people it amplifies other flaws so is also a flaw

[Yana.]

I don't believe in God if he is defined as someone who created the universe on purpose and who judges his creation. In my point of view, God is the first matter or energy that existed. At the beginning, there was either nothing or something. If there was nothing, there had to be something that came out of that nothing (this would mean that the law of conservation of energy isn't valid anymore - or maybe it became valid after the creation of time and space?). If something existed, this "being" doesn't have an origin (that's hard to accept because we always think that there has to be a beginning and an ending). This something - call it God, primal matter or whatever you want - just happened to be there and evolved to our perceived world.

There is no such thing as heaven or hell - that's just a way of keeping society under control. I don't like religions that try to make people feel guilty - Jesus died on the cross for our sins! And: if YOU are a sinner, go to confession! These kind of religions are, however, not useless. They provide an emotional comfort. People are scared of the unknown, thus it is natural that they fear death. The concept of heaven and hell is easy to understand. If you’ve been a good person, you'll be rewarded, if not, you'll be punished. It's like an advice: Behave and you'll get into paradise! That’s a nice way of thinking about death, isn’t it? (On the other hand, this concept was also abused - to give an example: sale of indulgences).

I wonder how long it will take that, for example, Roman Catholicism is considered as trustworthy as Mithraism! (Btw have you realised the parallels between the two? It’s unbelievable!)

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Yana.)
I don't believe in God if he is defined as someone who created the universe on purpose and who judges his creation. In my point of view, God is the first matter or energy that existed. At the beginning, there was either nothing or something. If there was nothing, there had to be something that came out of that nothing (this would mean that the law of conservation of energy isn't valid anymore - or maybe it became valid after the creation of time and space?). If something existed, this "being" doesn't have an origin (that's hard to accept because we always think that there has to be a beginning and an ending). This something - call it God, primal matter or whatever you want - just happened to be there and evolved to our perceived world.

There is no such thing as heaven or hell - that's just a way of keeping society under control. I don't like religions that try to make people feel guilty - Jesus died on the cross for our sins! And: if YOU are a sinner, go to confession! These kind of religions are, however, not useless. They provide an emotional comfort. People are scared of the unknown, thus it is natural that they fear death. The concept of heaven and hell is easy to understand. If you’ve been a good person, you'll be rewarded, if not, you'll be punished. It's like an advice: Behave and you'll get into paradise! That’s a nice way of thinking about death, isn’t it? (On the other hand, this concept was also abused - to give an example: sale of indulgences).

I wonder how long it will take that, for example, Roman Catholicism is considered as trustworthy as Mithraism! (Btw have you realised the parallels between the two? It’s unbelievable!)

The main idea I've heard of about making origins congruent with the conservation of energy is that the universe is a 0 energy entity. It's been demonstrated reasonably clearly that the universe has a net amount of 0 energy. Hence, the original 0 energy before origin is the same as the energy now. It's the mechanism used to cause this transition that we have little idea about.

[Okashira]

Let's review a little bit. If God doesn't exist, where does consciousness comes from? How did life come from non-life?

[Xotol]

(Original post by Okashira)
Let's review a little bit. If God doesn't exist, where does consciousness comes from? How did life come from non-life?

Why is "we don't know" such a difficult concept to accept? Just because we don't know now does not mean that we will never know, and it certainly does not mean that a supernatural being was necessarily behind it.

'Goddidit' does not provide a meaningful answer if you have no direct evidence for your God.

[Okashira]

(Original post by Xotol)
Why is "we don't know" such a difficult concept to accept? Just because we don't know now does not mean that we will never know, and it certainly does not mean that a supernatural being was necessarily behind it.

'Goddidit' does not provide a meaningful answer if you have no direct evidence for your God.

You have a lot of confidence we will find an answer to this, but I believe this is a more complex question than asking where did the universe come from. You could almost say we are a universe within a universe.

It's possible that once everything is broken down, a law may be established that consciousness cannot come from inanimate material. We are still studying what consciousness is.

[Gofre]

(Original post by Okashira)
Let's review a little bit. If God doesn't exist, where does consciousness comes from? How did life come from non-life?

God of the gaps.

[Gofre]

(Original post by Okashira)
You have a lot of confidence we will find an answer to this, but I believe this is a more complex question than asking where did the universe come from. You could almost say we are a universe within a universe.

It's possible that once everything is broken down, a law may be established that consciousness cannot come from inanimate material. We are still studying what consciousness is.

Putting aside that we don't have laws of biology, there is currently nothing to support that such a law may one day be established, making it a moot point.

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by Gofre)
Putting aside that we don't have laws of biology, there is currently nothing to support that such a law may one day be established, making it a moot point.

Hmm...Mendel's laws?

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Okashira)
You have a lot of confidence we will find an answer to this, but I believe this is a more complex question than asking where did the universe come from. You could almost say we are a universe within a universe.

It's possible that once everything is broken down, a law may be established that consciousness cannot come from inanimate material. We are still studying what consciousness is.

We know a lot more about neuroscience than you think. The field of neuroscience extends from molecular mechanisms behind the brain (and once we start studying the molecular approach to a field in medicine, it's a sign we are beginning to understand it) to study of higher order behaviours, which is basically study of the consciousness. And neuroscientists don't just specialise in neuroscience any more-there's too much information, and they need to specialise WITHIN neuroscience to become an expert in a field. Hence, you and I aren't qualified to make any statements about consciousness from a scientific perspective, but what we can say is that it's not a long step to say that consciousness might be understood by neuroscientists.

[Xotol]

(Original post by Okashira)
You have a lot of confidence we will find an answer to this, but I believe this is a more complex question than asking where did the universe come from. You could almost say we are a universe within a universe.

I never said I have a lot of confidence we will find an answer. I simply said that us not knowing now does not mean that it will stay like that forever. After all, science (including neuroscience - which is related to this) has advanced at an incredible rate these last few hundred years.

Even if we don't find an answer, I don't think that that's enough reason to use the God of gaps argument.

It's possible that once everything is broken down, a law may be established that consciousness cannot come from inanimate material. We are still studying what consciousness is.

That's not a law, but, even still, we don't know. Of course, we are still studying what consciousness is, but it wasn't that long ago when something like blood seemed like an ethereal substance that could never be broken down into components... and here we are today. Our knowledge and understanding changes.

[Gofre]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
Hmm...Mendel's laws?

It's more a figure of speech for Mendelian genetics, they don't meet the conventional definitions of a law. Law is typically defined either as being universally uniform or as being able to be expressed mathematically. The former can be seen as inapplicable with the example of Mendel's "law of segregation", which states that each individual has a pair of chromosomes for each trait, immediately contradicted by sufferers of down syndrome who have a trio of them at chromosome 21. The latter should be self evident in that they cannot be expressed mathematically.

[Kosmos]

(Original post by Okashira)
You have a lot of confidence we will find an answer to this, but I believe this is a more complex question than asking where did the universe come from. You could almost say we are a universe within a universe.

I bet everything previous to finding out that the sun was actually just a star said exactly what you have, it's called the argument from ignorance, "I don't know how it happened, therefore god must have did it.", it's the same mindset as how the ancient religions thought, we can't explain the sun so it must be a god. We don't know at the moment, we may never know, but to give an answer which does not help anyone but breeds ignorance is pathetic and halts scientific enterprise.

(Original post by Okashira)
It's possible that once everything is broken down, a law may be established that consciousness cannot come from inanimate material. We are still studying what consciousness is.

Can't you just reserve judgment until the answers are given, there have been many theories into what consciousness is, in my opinion it's just the incredible chemical reaction within the brain which gives an illusion that it can exist without matter, but that's my opinion, I don't say that I'm right, I wait for the evidence.

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by Gofre)
It's more a figure of speech for Mendelian genetics, they don't meet the conventional definition of a law. Law is typically defined either as being universally uniform or as being able to be expressed mathematically. The former can be seen as inapplicable with the example of Mendel's "law of segregation", which states that each individual has a pair of chromosomes for each trait, immediately contradicted by sufferers of down syndrome who have a trio of them at chromosome 21. The latter should be self evident in that they cannot be expressed mathematically.

Although mathematical expression is common, it is by no means a prerequisite!

I'd also like to add that uniformity isn't a prerequisite for a law either, we can take one we know from basic physics: Ohm's law, which only applies to linear networks. Hooke's law only applies if an object attached to a spring doesn't exceed the elastic limit of the spring.
We could make a similar case for Mendel, and say it only applies in the case of ordinary spindle fibre function. Unless there's a more major contradictory example that I'm overlooking.

Quick question while you're here: spindle fibre failure in non-disjunction is still seen as being random, yes? Do we know of any factors which encourage it?

[Gofre]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
Although mathematical expression is common, it is by no means a prerequisite!

I'd also like to add that uniformity isn't a prerequisite for a law either, we can take one we know from basic physics: Ohm's law, which only applies to linear networks. Hooke's law only applies if an object attached to a spring doesn't exceed the elastic limit of the spring.
We could make a similar case for Mendel, and say it only applies in the case of ordinary spindle fibre function. Unless there's a more major contradictory example that I'm overlooking.

Quick question while you're here: spindle fibre failure in non-disjunction is still seen as being random, yes? Do we know of any factors which encourage it?

I did say either universally uniform or mathematically expressible, which both Ohm's and Hooke's laws are the latter of within their relevant areas. Furthermore these laws are intended to describe what occurs within those relevant areas specifically, for example Ohm's law is only intended to describe current within a linear network and thermodynamics is only applied to a closed system. In such cases the difference between a closed and open system is something that can be clearly defined as whether or not energy can be transferred or not, same goes for linear and non-linear networks. There isn't really such a clear cut distinction when it comes to genetics, because errors are intrinsic to the processes. There is no such thing as guaranteed perfect replication, so calling something a law on the basis of perfect replication seems somewhat arbitrary.

Regarding nondisjunction, it's not an area I'm particularly well-read in but from what I can gather it can be caused by external factors.

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by Gofre)
I did say either universally uniform or mathematically expressible, which both Ohm's and Hooke's laws are the latter of within their relevant areas. Furthermore these laws are intended to describe what occurs within those relevant areas specifically, for example Ohm's law is only intended to describe current within a linear network and thermodynamics is only applied to a closed system. In such cases the difference between a closed and open system is something that can be clearly defined as whether or not energy can be transferred or not, same goes for linear and non-linear networks. There isn't really such a clear cut distinction when it comes to genetics, because errors are intrinsic to the processes. There is no such thing as guaranteed perfect replication, so calling something a law on the basis of perfect replication seems somewhat arbitrary.

Regarding nondisjunction, it's not an area I'm particularly well-read in but from what I can gather it can be caused by external factors.

Hmm...
What do you suggest it be called instead? I can't think of any other words to fit it. It's not specific enough to be a fact, and it can't be called a theory since it doesn't offer explanation, and it's clearly not a hypothesis. Any ideas?

I can accept the logic that it's not uniform due to the inherent errors, but I'm not yet convinced that it's sufficient to debunk it from being called a law. It provides a consistent description of the observed phenomena and makes a prediction of what happens under normal conditions, and I've never seen a reputable source talk about the process without the word "normally". So does the intrinsic acknowledgement of possibility of error not account for your objection? When Mendel originally put it forward, I don't know what he said about mutation, or if he said anything at all: after all, he didn't exactly have the means to know about it. But nowadays, that has been corrected since we know the cause of trisomy/monosomy and that it isn't consistent with the laws as Mendel postulated. Surely they can make the specification of "under normal conditions" without sacrificing the right to call it a law? To me it seems your objection to it (ignoring the mathematical expression, like I said, not a prerequisite to being a law ) is the lack of clarity in what "normal conditions" would be since perfect replication isn't defined; surely though instead, normal conditions can be defined as resulting in gametes containing 1 allele of each chromosome?

Semantics is annoying.

[Gofre]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
Semantics is annoying.

Indeed they are this is getting off topic so I think we're better off cutting it here (or moving to PM if you like, although my knowledge on this particular area of genetics is starting to get stretched out at this point!). Regarding what to call them, I would refer to the individual "laws" as scientific principles under the overarching theory of Mendelian genetics. Principle has always seemed like a somewhat nondescript way of describing established phenomena like the behaviour of biological/biochemical processes which don't fit squarely into a specific definition themselves but are contained within a more all-encompassing area of study.