At 11:53 AM 10/28/2000, you wrote:
>Reflectorites
>
>On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:46:12 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
>
>[...]
>
> >SJ>One wonders why Richard even *bothers* debating with "irrational"
> >>opponents who spout "absurd", and "nonsense" arguments?
>
>RW>Well, that's the one rational thing that you've said in your last few
> >replies to me.
> >
> >I suppose the answer is that I have great faith in the power of rational
> >argument. I keep thinking that *this* point is so clear that even a
> >creationist/IDer will be able to accept it. Or at least I used to. My faith
> >in the power of rational argument has just about been knocked out of me by
> >my experiences with creationists/IDers over the last year. In future, I
> >doubt that I will engage in any more debates with them.
>
>One day Richard may realise that the real problem is not "rational
>argument" but the ultimate *starting point* which must be *assumed*.
Chris
Would you care to prove that starting points must be assumed? In your view,
I'd guess that that would be impossible because, in your view, you'd have
to start from assumed starting points in order to prove that starting
points must be assumed. But, it's also impossible for another reason: It's
false. It rests on the false assumption that there can be no other way to
establish starting points than to *assume* them. That you cannot prove
starting points does not mean that they must simply be assumed. I'll leave
it as an exercise for the reader (for now) to come up with a *rational*
alternative to merely assuming starting points.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 14:49:17 EST