Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:52:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020910094526.A62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20020909220117.5343f09b.yid@softhome.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
> "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I think you are operating on a Thomistic notion of "faith". Faith
> > > > does not take over where reason leaves off. Faith is the
> > > > foundation of reason. Reasoning would not even be possible
> > > > without faith. I argue that only *Christian* faith can account
> > > > for reason, but here I suppose we disagree.
> > >
> > > Until you prove that through your faith you can reason better than
> > > the rest of us, a thesis very much in doubt, this statement is
> > > unsupportable.
> >
> > Well, please go back and read some of my posts to Terry and Dave.
>
> ROFL!
>
> > For example, the naturalist cannot account for human reason, since
> > according to a naturalist, everything that happens in the human brain
> > is just electro-chemical responses in the brain which have nothing to
> > do with "truth", "error", "right reason", etc. If a person is a
>
> A computer programmer cannot account for computer programms, because
> they are composed of moving electrons that have nothing to do with:
> printf ("Hello world.\n");
Computer programs are not electrons. They are non-material, a set
of instructions. Anyway, your point was?
> > naturalist, he has no reason to be a naturalist. He must also say
> > that other people's beliefs in God are also only the result of
> > electro-chemical responses in the brain. He could never know whether
> > or not he was right, since every attempt to reason his way to the
> > truth is just more electro-chemical responses in the brain, and hence,
> > the results of *these* reactions are also suspect.
>
> If this is an example of your "superior xtian reason", I'll have none of
> it. ;-)
You know, you could, if you have a point to make, put your money where
your mouth is and point out how the argument is fallacious if you really
think it is. Your comment hardly counts as a refutation.
Neal
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020910094526.A62741-100000>