Re: Questions to Allen Roy

From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Oct 09 2003 - 22:08:59 EDT

  • Next message: Alexanian, Moorad: "RE: Methodological naturalism versus philosophical naturalism, from re: Phillip Johnson"

    allenroy wrote:

    > Walter Hicks wrote:
    >
    > > allenroy wrote:
    > > It strikes me that you are operating in a similar fashion. You are a Flood Cataclysmist and that is
    > > the end of the story. If you do not know the answer, you are sure that someone else does. Glenn's
    > > assessment is probably correct in that no fact or data could ever change your view. If I am wrong,
    > > could you tell me what data might? If I am not wrong, then what is the purpose behind any discussion?
    >
    > The only reason I point you to other sources is that my slate is full and I know for certain that it has
    > been addressed by others before. I have read of possibilities, but I don't remember off the top of my
    > head where to find the information. But I know it is easy to find with a simple search engine. There is
    > no way that I could remember every detail all the time. If I want to find it, I know I can and so can
    > you.

    That only proves my contention, Allen. You do everything except answer the questions I pose. So I will say
    them again.:

    Glenn's assessment is probably correct in that no fact or data could ever change your view. If I am wrong,
    could you tell me what data might? If I am not wrong, then what is the purpose behind any discussion?

    ===================================
    Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>

    In any consistent theory, there must
    exist true but not provable statements.
    (Godel's Theorem)

    You can only find the truth with logic
    If you have already found the truth
    without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
    ===================================



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 09 2003 - 22:09:05 EDT