This is such a sensitive subject, Harv, that I often find myself with my hands sitting dormant on the keyboard whilst I painstakingly strategize my choice of words. Unlike cold, hard, math/physics ... when debating on philosophy, I feel surrounded in a mine field of ambiguity, circular reasoning, and potential contradictory statements. Although I try my best to watch my step, I know that any minute somebody will come along and say "Mark but wait, didn't you just say that....."

It is a tight spot when somebody comes along and uses your own words against you... at least for me it is. That's why I try my damnedest to avoid those predicaments. They're hard to talk your way out of, while at the same not feeling forced to abandon your position.

Anyways, enough blabbering; forgive me. To get back at the subject at hand...

>>>What is wrong with the 'God of gaps' argument is that it is not advancing an argument that is able to make understanding more clear.>If you notice nowhere did I plead ignorance for my reason to believe. Instead I showed the weakness of holding something as defined when it cannot possibly be defined. In fact, for it (a mathematical nature) to be mathematical it seems to be that such a world would originate in mystery. This is not a mystery in terms we don't know the answer, it is a mystery in terms of there can't exist an answer. This is deduceable from what we know. This is, in my opinion, what a good philosophical argument should do.>"If you notice nowhere did I plead ignorance for my reason to believe.">"Instead I showed the weakness of holding something as defined when it cannot possibly be defined."

• Subtle differences - harvey1 - October 26, 2001 - 14:51 UTC
  • Correction - harvey1 - October 26, 2001 - 15:31 UTC