(October 9, 2009 at 6:17 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Okay, what other method is there that would work?
That is determined by your metaphysical and epistemological views. For all I know, you may agree with Eilonnwy who believes (it seems at this point) that evidence is not 'evidence' unless it's empirical. You might hold to metaphysical naturalism (expressly or implicitly), begging the question on God's existence. Who knows. I was simply correcting your flow of reasoning, so that it followed validly. Some people, like myself and apparently Adrian, hold that other forms of evidence exist, like logical and mathematical, etc.
(October 9, 2009 at 6:26 am)Tiberius Wrote: If a purely logical argument could be presented without fallacies, I'd go with that. That reminds me, I need to respond to Arcanus on the TAG debate. I've just been so busy with coursework recently...do forgive me
Thou art forgiven. Remember, I am essentially working two full-time jobs over the next few weeks so I don't mind you taking time with your response.
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)



