(June 3, 2024 at 12:03 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Sure, and where a person is at..if they're having or purporting to have a rational conversation with you, assuming the truth of evolutionary processes as a criticism of their product as truth machines, then however compelling they might find evidence to that effect, they've decided there's still at least one.
Them. The rational arguer...an evolutionary product expecting it's observations to yield conclusions that are both true and predictive.
Ah, gotcha. Yes, that is something I have considered in the past - simply saying “yup, let’s say you are such a product and are in the same state as me”. It may be distasteful as a conclusion for them or for both parties, but not liking something doesn’t make it any more or less true
That said, you can assume something for the sake of argument and opine on it as an agent outside of that proposed framework, can’t you? I think we do this when levelling an internal critique against theism based on the argument from evil?
