There is a difference, David, between assertion and explanation. You made an assertion with no viable explanation
You have asked me to keep my posts short. That is what keeps lengthy explanations out of my posts to you. If you want more explanation, you now need to ask for it. Nevertheless, I did give you a short explanation, you just did not recognize it. The explanation was so short, you considered it to be an assertion. Just ask for more explanation like Lance does.
John Smithson wrote:
As I see it, there is no good reason for changing subjects in the middle of a discussion.
The subject wasn't changed. The subject was related to similar terminology in a disparate discipline.
John Smithson wrote:
You would disagree, of course, because that is an important part of your debate tactic.
I have no such debate tactic as you describe here. I am not here to win any debate. I am here to discuss truth. What I do is find the underlying assumptions in an argument and focus the discussion there in order to try and resolve the differences. You view that as changing the subject, but it is not.
Are you here to win a debate? Try to be here to discuss truth. Be a team player. We are not your enemies. It does no good for you to make out like Izzy and I are your enemies. We are your buddies.
John Smithson wrote:
A good example is "Maybe she is more perceptive than you are."
This was a tongue-in-cheek statement meant to cause you to reconsider whether or not you have all the answers. You attacked Izzy personally, saying that she was blinded by bias and a lazy student of the Biblical message. My perspective of the exchange was that Izzy perceived relationships between concepts that you could not. So who do you think that I see as being blinded by bias in this exchange you had with her? Hence, my tongue-in-cheek statement that maybe she is more perceptive than you are. Try at the least to consider the possibility, then relate how this might help you continue the discussion by asking questions that might help you see what it is that she sees that is hidden from you.
John Smithson wrote:
Although this might be an accurate assessment, this observation has nothing to do with the discussion.
It has everything to do with the discussion. You gave up on the discussion because she perceived things you did not and would not try to perceive. Instead, you resulted to calling her names and blaming her for the failure of the discussion. She is still willing to discuss and you are not. You should contemplate why that is.
John Smithson wrote:
Suddenly, we have completely lost tract of the original discussion and have moved into the phase where the respondent must defend against the accusations of the plantif.
You dropped the discussion and so I spoke up about why the discussion failed. Now you blame me for causing you to lose track of the original discussion?
John Smithson wrote:
there is a TOE but it is not a mathmatical equation.
David Miller wrote:
How do you know that? Without math, Einstein never would have developed his theories of relativity. I think any TOE would have to be mathematical in order to be predictive, which is the goal of every theory.
John Smithson wrote:
I do not "know." Neither do you. It is just that some very good men (Einstien and Hawkins [sic] for example) could not come up with the "solution." Einstein was a believer of sorts in God. And that is why he continued his search for a mathmatical [sic] and unifying solution. If such were discovered, an equation showing a relationship between the world of the large and the world of the very small, it could be argued that nothing was proven except that one came from the other -- a progression and extension of evolutionary theory. And, although we might argue this philosophical claim -- the "fact" of the matter is, IMO, the TOE will be found in the postulated and philosophical truth that God is the only consideration that unifies Relativity to Quandum [sic] Dynamics - or man to man or man to Himself or love to hate or that which is reducible to that which is not. Do I dare critsize [sic] Eistein [sic]? Oh, you betcha. If for no other reason than the fact that he had such pathetic hair.
So we start talking about TOE and you end by talking about Einstein's hair? LOL. Next time you criticize someone for changing the subject, try looking in the mirror. Don't forget to have your comb handy. :-)
Seriously, though, you have done here exactly what rationalists and scientists hate the most. When a problem appears to be tough to resolve, the researcher resorts to the old "God did it" hypothesis, which really tells us nothing at all. This is one reason that many philosophers have suggested that if something cannot be described mathematically, then it is not a source of truth. Although I would disagree with that assertion, I think you might learn something by considering why many philosophers have taken this position.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
