"for consistency?"
Hi Tim,
Your post was interesting the first time,
but it seemed very telling to me that you did not
take the issue further into that discussion
of dualism vs. non-dualism which was asked
of you. It was also unclear why your title to
this post ended with "for consistency" and apparently addressed me but made a funny joke of my name (ha ha!).
Yes, mathematicians may discuss things that
logically may not exist together, and that does
not make me uncomfortable. What is more troubling is that demagogues, whether religious or anti-religious, have used the realm of
God and Science to impose preposterous notions for worldly gain, when arguably, God and Science ought, by conscience, to be left clear of deliberate fraud so that difficult, complicated, sacred matters such as justice, sustainability, community and individual freedom of conscience may be considered by such frail mortals as we all are, without the distractions
of antagonistic fraud. As for your reference to neutrality... is it to be assumed that because you are descended from Swiss ancestry, that you have inherited some privileges as an unbiased judge in matters of logical rigor?
Mike

• are u makin fun of my writing impediment? - sagefr0g - May 28, 2003 - 19:53 UTC
  • Forum demise - ericb - May 29, 2003 - 12:32 UTC
    • self defense - sagefr0g - May 29, 2003 - 13:45 UTC
      • since you are a rational type - ericb - May 30, 2003 - 10:46 UTC
        • Why don't you find out yourself? - harvey1 - May 30, 2003 - 15:30 UTC
        • sorry i can't help you - sagefr0g - May 30, 2003 - 22:13 UTC