Hi Dick,

Thanks for participating in our little discussion. If you don't mind, I'm gonna stay with the bullet point format bcz I'm a little tight on time and is seems I can provide sufficient response this way:

- The 'original dilemma' as you labelled it is a discussion on metaphysical issues. We don't 'know' metaphysical issues, however we use concepts such as simplicity and parsimony, explanability, correspondence to the world, etc to achieve better metaphysical explanations. I believe it an Indian tale which viewed the world as supported by a turtle and turtles all the way down as to what supports that turtle. Obviously ignorance is not an excuse for folly.

- I think we are trying to build a self-consistent model *and* a model that corresponds with observations, meets parsimonious requirements, etc.

- Our interpretation may accept facts as interpreted by our subconscious, but our arguments should be justifiable on conscious and logical grounds. Perhaps Paul and I have a subconscious infatuation with foundations, but that is irrelevant.

- We don't have to prove anything, just make a reasonable case. That's the best metaphysics offers.

- Establishing value of a particular mechanism is the goal of any argument.

- I agree that we should list all assumptions, but I think the other individual should also challenge those assumptions. If there are invalid assumptions that either Paul or I have made, then please speak up.

- Paul and I didn't define real, but not everyone has a specific problem with that term. But, since it has come up I'll define real as that which matches reality and is not reduceable into another more fundamental phenomena entirely.

- I understand why *you* see simplicity as important, what I want to know is why Paul thinks simplicity is important. What purpose does simplicity provide if God can pop out of nothing in a finite past and then do anything he wants?

- You may have defined the word reality, but for me it means all that lies beyond our own subjective view of the world.

- The space we are discussing is God's space that he lives in (i.e., according to Paul's view). Space is mathematically and even physcially describable so I wonder why Paul feels that God created mathematics since he already lives in something that has mathematical attributes.

- My foundationalist view doesn't require magic. It simply accepts the most common sense view of a foundation to the world: the phenomenal state of being undefined. That is, an undefined reality is the foundation to my model (not to be confused with 'nothing'). You can't get simpler than that and it requires little justification on my part. Whatever arises from an undefined reality is complementary to my model's view.

- I agree that an objective reality is not 'knowable', but there's more and less reasonable views as to its ultimate nature. That is what I am trying to postulate: a reasonable view.

- Dick, can you answer those specific posts to your particular model? It's needed for me to popular understand it. Thanks!

Sorry for the quick bullet points. It's not the ideal way to respond.

Warm regards, Harv