|The Ghost of Paley
Joined: Oct. 2005
|It certainly isn't me. I've already explained why your strawman is nothing to do with what I've said. So all this "puttie or shuttie" nonsense is simply yet more evidence tha you're off your tiny nut.|
Then say something worth rebutting. Your point seems to be, "everything worthwhile flows from objective reason" (if that's not your point, you lose). I showed many clear counterexamples, literary criticism being one. You simply can't define or appreciate art without recourse to subjective interpretation and emotion. Sorry.
Jeannot, I think we're talking past each other. I'm not assuming God to prove God. I'm saying that observations imply that random chance alone can't explain our universe. Therefore, there must be an organising principle (doesn't have to be God, could be a natural law we haven't discovered, or perhaps our universe has had trials that are currently hidden from us). I interpret this principle as God. But God was not the presumed hypothesis, atheism was.
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.