Sometimes, Gleen, I think you and I must inhabit different planets.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:53:22 -0000 "Glenn Morton"
<glenn.morton@btinternet.com> writes:
> Hi Burgy,
>
> There is nothing wrong with pointing out the logical consequences of
> an
> opponent's position.
That is true. I think I said exactly that several times before.
What you are doing with your claim that no YEC
> argues
> for a deceptive God is the same as saying that we can't point out
> the
> logical consequences to someone who holds a wierd view.
Not at all the same. That is your inference. When I say "no YEC argues
for a DG, that is simply a statement of fact. Nothing more. What you can
argue back to him is simply not addressed.
But I also claim, of course, that you cannot make the argument to him
that he has accepted a DG. In point of fact, I think most YECs have not.
Gosse certainly did not. Yes -- the DG argument is (was) appropriate
against Gosse's claims, but only after (IMHO) one had read how he had
addressed the issue within his book.
>Suppose that
> someone
> held that there was no gravitational field. Analogous with what you
> are
> arguing for it would be inappropriate to point out that they would
> fly off
> the earth without gravity unless they had specifically stated that
> that is
> what would happen. I think you are placing a limit on argumentation
> rather
> than providing a real point of importance for the debate.
My argument to such a person would be along the lines of what set of
physical laws could he propose which would support his claim. I might
also suggest that the set of physical laws we now accept as invariant
makes his claim untrue. The "fly off the earth" just is an embellishment
of that, I think.
Burgy
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 19 2001 - 12:28:27 EST