Powerful evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

1. Pain is an emotive subject which is difficult - and probably impossible when we or some one we know is in extreme pain - to discuss objectively.
2. Pain is a necessary defence mechanism for protection and survival.
3. The laws of nature cannot distinguish necessary from unnecessary pain.
4. Pain is therefore sometimes purposeless but inevitable.
5. Even purposeless pain may be transformed into a way of expressing love.
6. For a mature person some pain is necessary for spiritual development.
7. Most living beings are not afflicted by incessant pain.
8. Extreme pain leads to a lapse into unconsciousness and even death.
9. Pain leads to the production of natural anaesthetics in the brain.
10. In nature there are opiates used by living beings to mitigate pain.
11. In a natural environment living beings are more accustomed to pain.
12. Living beings become unaware of pain when they are intent on an urgent need like
    survival.
13. Hypnosis and autohypnosis are means of overcoming pain.
14. One cannot know how much pain another living being experiences because it is subjective.
15. One cannot know to what extent the laws of nature are suspended to minimise pain.
16. Only hedonists - and pessimists like Schopenhauer - believe pain outweighs the value of all life.

 

[rossum]

1. Do you assess the value of life on earth in terms of acorns?

Irrelevant. Remember your original statement?

If the vast majority of living beings were deformed, diseased, disabled or dead before reaching maturity it would be a definitive disproof that “the designer wanted it that way”.

You didn’t mention “human life”, just “living beings”. I am merely sticking with the subject that you started. An acorn is a “living being”. An oak tree is a “living being”.

Perhaps you should have thought more carefully about what you said before posting it.

1. Is the superabundance of nature essential for survival?

How is this relevant? The superabundance exists, as we both agree. You clearly stated that such a superabundance, and the number of early deaths required by that superabundance, was a “disproof” that the designer wanted things that way. We have the required disproof.

1. Are the vast majority of living beings deformed, diseased or disabled?

The vast majority are “dead before reaching maturity”. You are omitting part of your statement. You might also want to have a look at human infant death rates in areas and times when modern medicine was not available. How many people have never had any disease in their lives? Someone with a cold is “diseased”, though the disease is not usually fatal.

1. Is the value of life outweighed by its drawbacks?

1. Do physical and spiritual development have a purposeless origin?

How are these relevant? We are discussing your specific statement, which provides the “definite disproof” you seem to be trying to avoid acknowledging.

Your version of design theory has been disproved on its own terms, using your own statement.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I forgot to add that the majority of significant living beings survive until maturity.

The designer finds then significant, presumably, otherwise she would not have designed them.

You won’t find acorns or vermin brought up to bolster the objections to Design in any rational discussion of the subject.

We are having a rational discussion, and acorns have arisen as a logical part of that discussion. You are incorrect here.

That ploy hardly strengthens your case for a purposeless existence - which co-exists uncomfortably with the Buddhist concept of spiritual development…

I do not believe in a purposeless existence. I do see a purposeless material world. The purpose lies in the spiritual, not in the material. The problem with the ID version of design is that it is trying to fit a spiritual purpose into the material world, and not finding the required material evidence. Unsurprising, since the evidence is spiritual, not material.

The spiritual world, and its purpose, continues to exist, even in aeons when the material universe does not exist.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

I forgot to add that the majority of significant

Precisely!

You won’t find acorns or vermin brought up to bolster the objections to Design in any rational discussion of the subject.

We are having a rational discussion, and acorns have arisen as a logical part of that discussion. You are incorrect here.

You brought up the subject of acorns and vermin as if they are a significant factor which refutes Design.

That ploy hardly strengthens your case for a purposeless existence - which co-exists uncomfortably with the Buddhist concept of spiritual development…

I do not believe in a purposeless existence. I do see a purposeless material world. The purpose lies in the spiritual, not in the material. The problem with the ID version of design is that it is trying to fit a spiritual purpose into the material world, and not finding the required material evidence. Unsurprising, since the evidence is spiritual, not material.

The spiritual world, and its purpose, continues to exist, even in aeons when the material universe does not exist.

1. Very few people would agree with you that the material world is entirely purposeless.
2. Do you deny that the material world has any value whatsoever?
3. Why does the material world exist if it is purposeless?
4. It seems incoherent that there are two worlds which co-exist and have nothing in common except the fact that we belong to both of them!
5. I share your belief that spiritual existence is real and purposeful but do not believe it has no origin or ultimate goal.

At least you are closer to Design than many people who reject spiritual existence altogether and believe there is **no purpose **beyond the material world.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Do you assess the value of life on earth in terms of acorns?

I should have thought it is obvious that not all living beings are **equally **valuable and significant! Nor do I regard acorns and vermin as completely valueless and insignificant. In my opinion the system **as a whole **is immensely valuable and highly significant even though it is necessarily imperfect.

1. Is the superabundance of nature essential for survival?

How is this relevant? The superabundance exists, as we both agree. You clearly stated that such a superabundance, and the number of early deaths required by that superabundance, was a “disproof” that the designer wanted things that way. We have the required disproof.

I should have thought it is obvious that not all living beings are **equally valuable and significant! If the vast majority **of human beings were diseased, deformed, disabled - or dead before they became adults entirely as the result of natural causes it would certainly be a problem for Design but that is not the case.

1. Are the vast majority of living beings deformed, diseased or disabled?

The vast majority are “dead before reaching maturity”. You are omitting part of your statement. You might also want to have a look at human infant death rates in areas and times when modern medicine was not available. How many people have never had any disease in their lives?

The diseases of civilisation have led to countless needless deaths. Urbanisation is responsible for epidemics. The decrease in morality has caused an increase in mortality…

BTW **Longevity is not the most significant criterion of the value of life. John Keats died at the age of twenty-five and Mozart at the age of thirty-five. Do you consider their lives, poetry and music to be less significant **on that account? Do you think parents who lose their children wish they had never been born?

Someone with a cold is “diseased”, though the disease is not usually fatal.

" **not usually **fatal" gives the game away"!
:

1. Is the value of life outweighed by its drawbacks?

1. Do physical and spiritual development have a purposeless origin?

How are these relevant? We are discussing your specific statement, which provides the “definite disproof” you seem to be trying to avoid acknowledging.

Your version of design theory has been disproved on its own terms, using your own statement.

I have answered your objections. The questions are relevant because your rejection of Design is **inconsistent **unless you believe that:

1. The value of life is outweighed by its drawbacks

and

1. Physical and spiritual development have a purposeless origin.

 

[inocente]

According to some Christians on this forum the laws of nature are perfect and therefore must cater for our every need and therefore cannot cause pointless suffering. I take it that you reject that view.

It isn’t a measure of perfection that something caters to our every whim, that would be like saying that a woman isn’t perfect unless she immediately falls spellbound into our arms.

The universe never needs to be rebooted, the laws of nature work perfectly under all contingencies, complete and correct in every way, free from fault or defect, an exemplification of supreme excellence. Not just that, they produce all the rich complexity from great simplicity. They are perfectly created by a perfect Creator, it doesn’t matter whether we happen to like them or not, we’re not God.

The main point is that you accept the pointlessness of much suffering - which must therefore be due to natural causes as well as human decisions.

Of course.

I’m simply pointing out that your implicit rejection of divine Providence is inconsistent with belief in a loving Father.

Please see last section of this post.

It is not my theory. It is an explanation given by St Irenaeus.

I’ve not read his work, so don’t know how good the modern interpretation is in the link you posted. But you are incorporating that interpretation into your theory,

Would it defeat the purpose of creating an orderly universe if miraculous cures occurred whenever some one is suffering from an incurable disease? If not why not?

I don’t see how we’d know. Perhaps pimples on noses would have been incurable except that God made sure Propionibacterium acnes could never become that potent.

In your own words “the laws of nature are independent of us and are not contingent on us”.

That’s the bare science, yes. So Design offers no metaphysics beyond the bare science for why some suffer and others don’t?

In the context of a loving Father concerned for our salvation…

That doesn’t sound much like fear.

Methinks you’re ignoring all the philosophers and theologians who during the last many thousand years have wrestled with the problem of natural evil and have not found the particular theories you proclaim at all reasonable.

Can you produce any of their reasons?

Take your example of a small child suffering the excruciating pain of an incurable disease. You are a priest standing with her parents helplessly looking at the child in her cot. The mother asks why God is doing this (or why God is permitting this). What answer can you give? God is giving the child a character-building opportunity? God is judging her? God has no power? Every reason I can think of sounds like a lame excuse in that situation. I think a lot of the lame excuses over the ages were dreamed up in ivory towers by people who never had to deal with reality.

There’s a whole bunch of them here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

 

[inocente]

There is no point in participating in discussions on a Philosophy forum if you believe there is “no point in theories (20-21) and no point trying to find God in miracles, evidence for design, etc.” Its purpose is not to preach but to give** reasons** for what we believe - as Jesus did when he was questioned by His opponents and by every successive generation of His followers. You are welcome to be a devil’s advocate but not to disparage the value of apologetics.

Mighty fine lecture, but methinks you missed the point - Paul’s philosophy.

Paul’s philosophy is that theories and miracles are never good reasons to believe, the only good reason to believe is Christ dying for us. Paul is asking what more evidence for God is needed than the message of the Cross? What possible meaning could be found in an abstracted creator or a god of signs and wonders to compare with the Word become Flesh?

It can be hard to accept that we are (or can be) redeemed, and then we may try to find reasons why we should be worthy of such a gift, reasons to believe, but imho those reasons can’t help but be spurious and misleading since they start from being unable to just accept the gift. So there’s every good reason to disparage the value of apologetics that don’t preach Christ crucified.

None of which necessarily applies to this thread, just saying in general.

 

[inocente]

Gödel demonstrated that there will always be some propositions that can’t be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms of the logical system to which they belong - unless you go outside the system. It follows that all complex systems are necessarily incomplete and that collections of atomic particles cannot give a **complete **explanation of themselves… Do you agree?

No, for the reasons given earlier. In order for Godel’s theorem to apply to your collections of atomic particles giving a complete explanation of themselves, you would need to define all the axioms for { collections of atomic particles }, which would take you forever, and show you had done a good job on the axioms, before you could prove that { collections of atomic particles } is incomplete.

But if your intent is to prove that a complete explanation is only possible with God, you would then need to define all the axioms for { God, collections of atomic particles }, which might take longer than forever, and show you had done a good job on the axioms, and then pull a rabbit out of the hat by proving that Godel’s theorem doesn’t apply to { God, collections of atomic particles }.

So no.

 

[rossum]

Precisely!

So, in that case, there is no relevance to using the adjective “significant” in this context. As far as your designer is concerned living being = significant living being, in all cases.

You brought up the subject of acorns and vermin as if they are a significant factor which refutes Design.

They are merely convenient examples showing that the majority of living organisms die before they reach maturity. That was the criterion you yourself proposed, and I used them as an illustration of the fact, to which you have agreed.

Your version of design has been falsified by your own criteria. I suggest that you drop the old version, and work on putting together a better version.

1. Very few people would agree with you that the material world is entirely purposeless.

The material world is made of space, time matter and energy, STEM. None of those four has any intrinsic purpose. Any purpose is extrinsic to them, and the result of external entities. The purpose of a rock may be to look good in someone’s garden, or to form part of a wall. The purpose is not intrinsic to the rock, but is external to the rock, and is produced by the person using the rock for some purpose. The same rock can be used for different purposes by different people or at different times.

1. Do you deny that the material world has any value whatsoever?

It has no intrinsic value. Living beings assign value to it.

1. Why does the material world exist if it is purposeless?

What is the purpose of a piece of ice on the fifth planet of a star in the Andromeda galaxy? Huge volumes of the universe are purposeless. Small parts of it that directly impact on humans are assigned a purpose by humans.

1. It seems incoherent that there are two worlds which co-exist and have nothing in common except the fact that we belong to both of them!

Where did I say that they have nothing in common? I just analyse things differently from you, probably because I do not follow one of the Abrahamic religions, so I do not analyse things in terms of the Abrahamic God.

1. I share your belief that spiritual existence is real and purposeful but do not believe it has no origin or ultimate goal.

Spiritual existence has an ultimate goal. What does that have to do with the material universe of STEM?

rossum

 

[rossum]

I should have thought it is obvious that not all living beings are **equally **valuable and significant!

It is not obvious to a Buddhist. Nor would you think so if you were reincarnated as a rat or a mouse. You are assigning a value based on your religious beliefs. My religious beliefs differ, so I assign a different value.

You will find it difficult to construct a valid scientific theory of design if the theory depends on the religious beliefs of those holding it. Buddhist physics does not differ from Christian physics.

I have answered your objections.

I was not answering objections, I was meeting your own rejection criterion. Remember:

If the vast majority of living beings were deformed, diseased, disabled or dead before reaching maturity it would be a definitive disproof that “the designer wanted it that way”.

We have agreed that “the vast majority of living beings” are “dead before reaching maturity”. That meets your own rejection criterion.

You need a major reworking of your design theory. Currently it does not match reality, which is a fatal flaw for any scientific theory.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Precisely!

There are degrees of significance just as there are degrees of value.

You brought up the subject of acorns and vermin as if they are a significant factor which refutes Design.

They are merely convenient examples showing that the majority of living organisms die before they reach maturity. That was the criterion you yourself proposed, and I used them as an illustration of the fact, to which you have agreed.

Your version of design has been falsified by your own criteria. I suggest that you drop the old version, and work on putting together a better version.

I have pointed out that there are degrees of value just as there are degrees of significance.

1. Very few people would agree with you that the material world is entirely purposeless.

The material world is made of space, time matter and energy, STEM. None of those four has any intrinsic purpose. Any purpose is extrinsic to them, and the result of external entities. The purpose of a rock may be to look good in someone’s garden, or to form part of a wall. The purpose is not intrinsic to the rock, but is external to the rock, and is produced by the person using the rock for some purpose. The same rock can be used for different purposes by different people or at different times.

They are hardly purposeless because without them life would not exist and we wouldn’t be discussing Design!

1. Do you deny that the material world has any value whatsoever?

It has no intrinsic value. Living beings assign value to it.

Even though it offers you so many opportunities for development, creativity and enjoyment?

1. Why does the material world exist if it is purposeless?

What is the purpose of a piece of ice on the fifth planet of a star in the Andromeda galaxy? Huge volumes of the universe are purposeless. Small parts of it that directly impact on humans are assigned a purpose by humans.

Size has nothing whatsoever to do with significance. It is only parochial human notions of parsimony that are the basis of your assumption that the universe is valueless, purposeless and insignificant.

1. It seems incoherent that there are two worlds which co-exist and have nothing in common except the fact that we belong to both of them!

Where did I say that they have nothing in common? I just analyse things differently from you, probably because I do not follow one of the Abrahamic religions, so I do not analyse things in terms of the Abrahamic God.

How is spiritual development related to physical development? Can it occur without it? If so why does the physical world exist?

1. I share your belief that spiritual existence is real and purposeful but do not believe it has no origin or ultimate goal.

Spiritual existence has an ultimate goal. What does that have to do with the material universe of STEM?

There is interaction between the mind and the body. They are not totally isolated from each other. What is the ultimate goal of spiritual existence?

 

[tonyrey]

I should have thought it is obvious that not all living beings are **equally **

To discuss the probability of reincarnation would take us away from the topic but it is certainly not self-evident to the same extent that we have a mind as well as a body.

You will find it difficult to construct a valid scientific theory of design if the theory depends on the religious beliefs of those holding it. Buddhist physics does not differ from Christian physics.

It doesn’t. Design is independent of any religious belief. It is based on the evidence that purpose is a reality and not a human invention.

I was not answering objections, I was meeting your own rejection criterion. Remember:
If the vast majority of living beings were deformed, diseased, disabled or dead before reaching maturity it would be a definitive disproof that “the designer wanted it that way”.

      We have agreed that "the vast majority of living beings" are "dead  before reaching maturity".  That meets your own rejection criterion.

You need a major reworking of your design theory. Currently it does not match reality, which is a fatal flaw for any scientific theory.

I have pointed out that** there are degrees of value and significance**. I’m sure you don’t regard and treat persons in the same way as rats! If you did you would soon finish up in court - or somewhere more sinister…

 

[rossum]

There are degrees of significance just as there are degrees of value.

How is this relevant? You made no conditions on the ‘significance’ of the living beings that died before reaching maturity. Your design theory is still falsified.

They are hardly purposeless because without them life would not exist and we wouldn’t be discussing Design!

Did you think about this before posting it? If life depends on STEM, then you are denying the existence of all immaterial life: angels, devils, gods, YHWH etc. In future, I suggest that you think more carefully about what you are posting. You appear to be taking an extreme materialist position here: “all life depends on STEM”.

It is only parochial human notions of parsimony that are the basis of your assumption that the universe is valueless, purposeless and insignificant.

A piece of rock has no intrinsic purpose. Different people can use it for different purposes. The same person can use it for different purposes at different times. In all cases, the purpose is separable from the rock. The rock is not inevitably attached to a single purpose, and only to that purpose. There is purpose, but it is not fixed and it is not unchanging.

There is interaction between the mind and the body. They are not totally isolated from each other.

Agreed, though there are times when only the immaterial exists.

What is the ultimate goal of spiritual existence?

“May all living beings attain peace.
May all living beings attain happiness.
May all living beings attain nirvana.”

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

There are degrees of significance just as there are degrees of value.

I’m afraid not. You can’t expect people to spell out all the conditions, provisos and limitations of every statement they make. Your alternative seems that nothing has any significance - which is clearly absurd.

They are hardly purposeless because without them life would not exist and we wouldn’t be discussing Design!

Did you think about this before posting it? If life depends on STEM, then you are denying the existence of all immaterial life: angels, devils, gods, YHWH etc. In future, I suggest that you think more carefully about what you are posting. You appear to be taking an extreme materialist position here: “all life depends on STEM”.

Once again you are misrepresenting me. Without material objects no **physical **life would exist.

It is only parochial human notions of parsimony that are the basis of your assumption that the universe is valueless, purposeless and insignificant.

A piece of rock has no intrinsic purpose. Different people can use it for different purposes. The same person can use it for different purposes at different times. In all cases, the purpose is separable from the rock. The rock is not inevitably attached to a single purpose, and only to that purpose. There is purpose, but it is not fixed and it is not unchanging.

Individual material objects may have no intrinsic purpose but elements such as hydrogen, oxygen and carbon constitute the physical basis of living organisms. The extreme complexity and exquisite organization of their molecular structure and information system point to Design rather than fortuitous combinations of events.

There is interaction

between the mind and the body. They are not totally isolated from each other.
Agreed, though there are times when only the immaterial exists.

That is true but when mind and body co-exist physical and spiritual development are intertwined. Otherwise reincarnation would not occur - supposing that it ever does.

What is the ultimate goal of spiritual existence?

“May all living beings attain peace.
May all living beings attain happiness.
May all living beings attain nirvana.”

I also agree with that - although our concepts of nirvana differ. At all events it concurs with my statements - apart from the reference to God - at the outset of this thread:

“It is the spiritual life that must surpass everything else because it is our greatest source of inspiration. Many people today cannot understand how monks and nuns can be happy and fulfilled when they are isolated from all that gives others their reasons for living. Yet their closeness to God is the greatest source of joy and peace anyone can have. Just to read what the saints and mystics of different religions - and even no religion - have written about their experiences is to glimpse a higher level of existence.”

 

[rossum]

I’m afraid not. You can’t expect people to spell out all the conditions, provisos and limitations of every statement they make.

This is science. You are expected to state clearly all the relevant conditions etc. for your hypothesis. Anything else will lead you into the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.

Without material objects no **physical **life would exist.

Again with the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. I said earlier that you should think more carefully before posting. State your position clearly, with all relevant information, conditions etc. Having to add extra conditions after the event merely shows the poor quality of your initial statement. You should have realised by now, that I am going to pick up any obvious errors you make in your initial statements. Take more time, and think about what you are posting more carefully before pressing the ‘submit’ button.

Individual material objects may have no intrinsic purpose but elements such as hydrogen, oxygen and carbon constitute the physical basis of living organisms. The extreme complexity and exquisite organization of their molecular structure and information system point to Design rather than fortuitous combinations of events.

False. Even ID theorists like Dr Dembski say that complexity alone is not an indicator of design. Shuffle three packs of cards together. Do a simple calculation of how complex (= improbable) that particular arrangement of cards is: 1.34e-276. Compare your answer with Dr Dembski’s Universal Probability Bound: 1e-150. You are showing a lack of knowledge of information theory here.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

In this post I am imitating your failure to discuss the subject objectively by introducing personal remarks.

This is science. You are expected to state clearly all the relevant conditions etc. for your hypothesis. Anything else will lead you into the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.

 

[tonyrey]

Evil is often used as evidence against Design but it is quite the opposite. If moral distinctions are merely human conventions everything is ultimately valueless and purposeless. Yet the reality of evil is demonstrated by its consequences. Empires and civilisations have disintegrated on its account. They crumbled away by having their strength and vitality sapped from within by moral decadence. Their citizens became so obsessed with power and pleasure they reverted to the law of the jungle and finally destroyed themselves and their society.

If we deliberately do something against our conscience we lose our integrity. A really evil personality becomes divided against itself and begins to decompose like a fruit which rots until it becomes inedible and poisonous. Criminals live with the knowledge that their crimes may be discovered and resort to one crime after another to avoid detection until their whole life becomes based on deception and falsehood - and they often betray one another when they are finally caught.

The tragedy is that people are often never taught the importance of being honest and unselfish. They don’t realise the pernicious effects their vices have on themselves. Corruption is a moral cancer which weakens their personality and eventually leads to spiritual death. Men and women who suffer from cancer of the body are not responsible for their disease which often transforms them into saints and heroes. Those who have cancer of the soul have only themselves to blame because in their heart of hearts they know it is wrong to make others suffer unnecessarily. Corrupt people appear to be enjoying themselves but they are not really happy. Very often they despise themselves for what they are because the sense of justice is too deeply ingrained in our nature for it ever to be entirely suppressed. It is also a fact that the more we have the more we want unless we exercise self-control. Greed and the lust for power are no exception. All vices incur their own punishment.

It is not in our nature to be evil. We have an insatiable desire for goodness which must be satisfied if we are to attain lasting happiness. Our conscience is not a luxury we can dispense with whenever we want but an essential element of our personality **designed **for our own benefit. We ignore it at our peril. In spite of being surrounded by comfort and wealth we can never be really happy unless we have a sense of achievement. Until we know we have done our best to reduce the misery in the world by sharing what we have with the less fortunate we shall never find true peace and contentment. Lasting happiness comes from moral integrity and not from corruption.

 

[rossum]

This is not science but philosophy

And philosophers don’t have to define their terms carefully, and don’t have to state their arguments clearly, with no hidden conditions or unstated assumptions?

You are showing a lack of knowledge of the Design explanation which takes into account two factors you have ignored: the exquisite organization of their molecular structure and information system contained in complexity.

I have taken both of those into account. Simple material explanations are perfectly capable of explaining “exquisite organisation”, such as snowflakes or crystals. Such organisation is an emergent property of the underlying chemistry or physics of the molecules involved. ID has attempted to show that certain living structures could not have evolved. So far, ID has been uniformly unsuccessful. Behe’s IC has been shown to be evolveable, which even Behe now accepts. Dembski’s CSI has also been shown to be evolveable, and indeed can trivially be shown to be capable of being generated by a regular process, in contrast to Dembski’s assertion to the contrary.

You are also forgetting that complexity is being discussed in the context of purpose as well as complexity.

You are insisting on purpose, I am not. Purpose is not intrinsic to something. What is the “purpose” of a rock? The purpose is assigned to the rock be an external intelligence. Different intelligences may assign different purposes. A single rock may have many different purposes, assigned by different intelligences. Furthermore, there is no requirement that the purpose only be assigned by the designer. I have never in my life designed a screwdriver, yet I own some screwdrivers and use them for various purposes – very useful for levering the tops off cans of paint for example.

It does not make sense to reject Design unless you can offer a reasonable alternative.

I have a reasonable alternatives, both in science and in the non-scientific area. For the material world, the apparent design is an artefact of the way our brains are wired and the emergent properties of STEM. For the non-material world, Buddhism rejects the question of origins as not useful and concentrates on what is useful.

At present your view seems to be that all the purposeful activity is derived from purposeless events. Is that correct?

No. Purposeful activity is derived from purposeful activity. Buddhists call it karma. Only purposeful activity generates karma. It is up to us to ensure that our purposes are wise, and not foolish.

rossum

 

[inocente]

This is not science but philosophy which covers a far greater field than science which is severely restricted to** physical **phenomena.

Although philosophy doesn’t use empirical methods, it is supposed to use logical reasoning rather than anything goes.

---

Do I take your lack of reply after two days to my posts #260, #261 and #262 means you’ve abruptly terminated our long discussion by finally realizing the error of your ways?

 

[tonyrey]

Although philosophy doesn’t use empirical methods, it is supposed to use logical reasoning rather than anything goes.—

Do I take your lack of reply after two days to my posts #260, #261 and #262 means you’ve abruptly terminated our long discussion by finally realizing the error of your ways?

Forgive me; I was sidetracked by our Buddhist friend who unwittingly succeeded in making me forget your posts! I shall answer them tomorrow without fail as I’m now coming to the end of a busy day, the last hour of which involved speaking Spanish…