To: PDerna
We agree, then. Correct? Good grief. Yes, we agree -- maybe. We agree only if you agree with my comments. You haven't addressed them, yet you say we agree. Perhaps we do agree. I won't know until you specifically retract this, copied from your post 379: "Insofar as science is founded on propositions with no verifiable evidence, I maintain that there is a fundamental misunderstanding in your presuppositions." I addressed that in 380.
And this, copied from your post 374: " If you believe in science at all, then you already believe in a number of things that have no scientific evidence, so why not this [the Creator]?" I addressed that (or at least dismissed it) in 376.
392 posted on
01/15/2004 4:19:34 PM PST by
PatrickHenry
(Everything good that I have done, I have done at the command of my voices.)
To: PatrickHenry
Fine...then which part do you want me to retract? When I say "propositions with no verifiable evidence," I am referring to those specific axiomatic truths, which cannot be scientifically proven or scientifically disproven, but which we assume to be true, like the sensory evidence principle you mentioned in 380. Like you said, "in your entire existence I'll wager you've never encountered a single instance of anything which contradicted those axioms," and you would be correct. So which part am I retracting?
407 posted on
01/16/2004 9:20:10 AM PST by
PDerna
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson