<< It is important to note that the two ways to answer the
question are NOT mutually exclusive regardless what the positivists claim
and regardless what Jim Bell claims.>>
Now I get to be classed with an entire philosophical movement! I'm moving up in
the world.
But I still don't agree. The two "ways" of going at the question ARE mutually
exclusive, if one a priori RULES OUT purpose, and the other way does not.
One way says the one answer we will NOT admit is intelligent purpose. Rules it
out from the start. The other says it is perfectly acceptable.
If you can please tell me how these are reconcilable, I would like to hear it.
Jim