Mike,

>>>"Luis finds 100 different rhetorical ways of saying (Dick is wrong)."

Please identify what is rhetorical about my criticism of Stafford's paper.

>>>"Rather than replying point by point..."

Not true. I have specifically quoted Stafford's "Foundations." Maybe not as much as you'd like, but it's important to stress that (IMO) Stafford's premises are incorrect.

Consider:

(1) God is everywhere.
(2) Wherever we look, we see a fraction of "everywhere."
[a bundle of mathematical equations/formulas based within (1) and (2), and a refutation of time based within the inability to understand it]
(3) Thus, everywhere we look, we see God.

If I saw folks I like 'buying' an argument like this one, I'd be inclined to discuss it.

I think we should focus more on the arguments themselves, and less on the people doing the arguing. Naturally, we're all probably guilty of this, but I think we should do our best to refrain from confusing disagreement of ideas with disagreeable personalities.

-LH

• innuendo, not math - carefuluniverse - August 24, 2002 - 18:18 UTC
• Rather than replying point by point to my posts - carefuluniverse - August 24, 2002 - 18:24 UTC