Jay Willingham wrote: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 6:10 AM
>
>"(A)rgumentum ad biblia". I like that.
>
>I do not regard your, Dave, or Glenn's positions as anything other than
>arguable interpretations. You seem to regard them as irrefutable and get
>downright testy if your dogma is challenged.
This statement just begs that someone ask you how you view logic itself. Is
logic not the sine qua non of all knowledge, including theological
knowledge? Is logic only a troublesome thing one can discard, streaking
naked through life in the ecstasy of illogic? Logic requires that what you
apply to your opponent can be applied to you. Have you not learned that in
law courts?
I have a real question. Have you ever actually taken a logic course--I mean
a full semester dose of syllogisms, Venn diagrams and the many logical
fallacies? David is a philosopher who would have taught the stuff, I did
grad work in philosophy where I took Logic, Symbolic Logice,and Logic and
the Scientific method etc. What you have commited is an advocation of an ad
hoc hypotheses, (i.e., the Devil fools everyone on Earth except me). Logic
isn't dogma, it is fundamental.
>I am not condemning you and am sorry if you got that impression.
I didn't get the impression you were condemning me. I thought you were
being excessively illogical, which may be oxymoronic, for how can one be
moderately illogical? It is like being moderately pregnant.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 24 2002 - 15:41:42 EDT