Can there be real causation for a material atheist?

[harvey1]

Here is my argument against material atheism:

1. If a material atheist world exists, then there must be a material cause for every effect; there can be no effect without a material cause.
2. Slicing up time to the minimum slices of time, we see there cannot be material causes that materially connects time slice A to its effect in time slice B.
3. Therefore, a material atheist world does not exist.

Based on this argument, can anyone show that it is possible for a material atheist world to exist?

[Curious]

Oh, this guy is a pain in the butt. Rather than me work through a good response, I'll wish him to be an atheist within 10 years. Hmm... that's a good idea because it takes the onus of me having to respond to him, and what the hell, I'm pyschic anyway (even though I don't "believe" in being pyschic).

I might be being pedantic here (and if THH has previously stated that he does not believe in psychic phenomena I apologise in advance) but being atheistic does not automatically disqualify somebody from believing in psychic experiences. From a purely scientific perspective, psychic phenomena could be explained due to electromagnetic sensitivity. It is possible to implant an idea into somebodies imagination ( notably shapes, colours and movement) by the correct electrical input (or magnetic field which causes an electrical current). Every thought creates an electomagnetic field. It is doubtful that the field created by a single brain could be correctly interpreted by an external brain in practice but the butterfly effect might cause sufficient disturbance to be noticable by sensitives ( but I doubt it ).

[Cathar1950]

Good point.
I wonder why harvey1 dosn't

"believe" in being pyschic

?
I don't belive in John Edwards but, I don't rule out all phenomona just because I don't understand it.
If you don't belive in gravity it still works. But I guess it is just our electric fields that make us splater anyway.
Time for the Daily Show.

[harvey1]

I have to agree with who ever said it may be none of them are correct. Pitting two opposing ideas don't make one of them right.

I'm certainly open to other suggestions. What I don't get is that if you cannot come up with any suggestions, then why think this is the fault of our imagination? Maybe, just maybe, your views are wrong!

I as watching something on tv about mental states being alike when experience or remembered. In a sense all experience are memory. They(events) happened before we notice them.
It seems that the world and are senses are not a one to one relationship. There is something going on that seems outside ourselves yet we are a part of it and it is represented in our minds.

I don't doubt it for a second. However, if we assume a material causation, then we have to account for that causation. If you cannot account for it, then why not give precedence to other views that can?

Honesty is a possibility.

How honest are these attempts by atheists to account for the facts here? I don't think the effort is such an honest one. The term denial comes more to mind.

Which biblical belief in God. There are many.
It is your conclusion based on you statement not mine. I would say that having a bible based faith is impossible, contradictory, and silly.

Fine, but you've given no evidence to suggest that God doesn't exist, or that revelation from God is impossible. What is the evidence?

[harvey1]

The laws do not determine the behaviour, it is the behaviours that determine the laws as we see them.

Of course, I disagree with that statement.

Laws is not a good choice of word really as this suggests that the objects adhere to the laws rather than the more correct view of objects having distinct behaviours that we interpret as the laws of physics.

Let's distinguish between these two concepts by regulative laws (your interpretation of laws) and non-regulative laws (my interpertation of laws).

Matter has particular properties depending on its type.

This sounds like matter conforms to a logical structure. If that's what you mean, then you would actually be arguing in favor of non-regulative laws.

These properties determine it's behaviour and interactions.

It can't be the properties that determine its behaviour and interactions. The reason is that properties are only descriptions of the "types" of matter, and if there are only regulative laws, then these descriptions also describe the regulative patterns. Hence, the descriptions (or "properties")don't determine the regulative patterns, they describe the regulative patterns.

Matter is not compelled to act in the way that it does, it acts that way because it is it's nature to do so.

In other words, the type of matter acts as the type acts. However, this doesn't tell us why the type always acts that way. It also doesn't tell us why there is a "type" of matter versus a grayscale where there is no real types. What causes one type of matter to stay that type, or convert to another type? Of course, if this material interpretation is correct, there are no causes or explanations to these questions.

This is problematical since you must postulate many characteristics that magically work together as a whole system, yet none of these characteristics have an explanation. For example, you have different types of matter which must each interact with other types, each must persist through time, each must have a certain relationship with space, each must follow the same rules of interaction, each must be eternal in the past, etc., etc.. When you look at all of these factors, I think it becomes foolhardy to believe that nature is this complicated at its root. I might add, Curious, since you are a theist, it becomes even more bizarre since in addition to all of these characteristics you must add God who comes with another long list of characteristics that must all be true at some fundamental level (i.e., without explanation). Me thinks this ontology is too fat and must go on a diet.

Matter does not distort space for any other reason than it is a property of matter.

The reason that non-regulative laws make much more sense, in my view, is that laws can be reduced to simpler laws, and those reduced to a set of axioms--perhaps axioms that are true only if there is merely a principle of causality operating in the world. If a principle of causality operates, then one could justify this by saying that any non-causal world would not be possible since existence is a causal principle. See how simple that is, and how logical and naturally forthcoming that is? No need to invent 101 characteristics of fundamental matter which just "is." Only one principle need be at the root of the world: causality. That's certainly not too luxurious of a principle to postulate at the beginning.

[Cathar1950]

I have not seen any theory of causation provided by you.

you must add God who comes with another long list of characteristics that must all be true at some fundamental level (i.e., without explanation).

It is funny we got enough trouble working with a theory of the universe and causation and some how you think you have a long list of God's characteristics that must be all true.

If a principle of causality operates, then one could justify this by saying that any non-causal world would not be possible since existence is a causal principle. See how simple that is, and how logical and naturally forthcoming that is? No need to invent 101 characteristics of fundamental matter which just "is." Only one principle need be at the root of the world: causality. That's certainly not too luxurious of a principle to postulate at the beginning.

Kind of simple minded. It seem Saying a non-causal world would not be possible since existence is a causal principle is kind of redundant.
Yet this is your prof that a materialist world doesn't exist. It seems you have shown that God can not exist. Because for you God has no causal principle. The universe and God are on the same footing. They is no reason why either should be accepted over the other. IF your argument against "atheistic materialism" were true then neither would God exist.

Anyway, if you reject time slicing, then you are guilty of accepting (2):

Quote:
2. Events are not real in that an event C at t1 is composed of an uncountable number of sub(C) events, and any particular sub(C) event is composed of an uncountable number of sub(sub(C) events, and so on without end


In which case you are rejecting causation by saying those events do not actually exist since they can be reduced to other events.

That doesn't follow. Your putting ideas in someone elses mouth and then say if they don't belive one then it is the other. From what little I know about quantum mechanics they are still working it out. Unlike you who thinks they got all the answers from some collection of writing about 2500 to 2000 years ago.

I'm certainly open to other suggestions. What I don't get is that if you cannot come up with any suggestions, then why think this is the fault of our imagination? Maybe, just maybe, your views are wrong!

I am open and my views could be wrong. Ask me tomorrow I might change my mind. I can't say the same for you because you don't think you could be wrong.

I don't doubt it for a second. However, if we assume a material causation, then we have to account for that causation. If you cannot account for it, then why not give precedence to other views that can?

No I don't have to give precedence to other views. Your the one who has to account for the causation of God. This is beyond your reach.
I see no difference between God creating God or the universe creating the universe. Your reference is from an old book of a collection of old writings that are not at all clear on any matters and some are suspect.

How honest are these attempts by atheists to account for the facts here? I don't think the effort is such an honest one. The term denial comes more to mind.

You kind of remind me of pop psychologist that say to a person that they think is an alcoholic. If he says he isn't then he is in denial.
Again you think your right and anyone that disagrees is in denial.
Why don't you drowned them if they are right they die if not they are wrong burn them?

Fine, but you've given no evidence to suggest that God doesn't exist, or that revelation from God is impossible. What is the evidence?

I don't have any evidence that God doesn't exist except my own personal subjective experience and intuition. I make no extraordinary claims. If I did I would share it. I am more of a Natural Deist/Theist or a radical empiricist. Maybe even a panentheist. It isn't my fight or quest. I just feel that Atheist get a bad rap as well as Agnostics. I belive this is often due to Bible believers with their inconsistent and archaic views and beliefs.
Any God has to reveal God's nature thru nature or our experiences and is therefor fallible.
Maybe revelation from God is not impossible. God just didn't do it. If God did then God did a bad job.
I have notice that you have not shown any evidence that you didn't make up or read from your book. You mostly ignore others evidence and build up straw men to knock down with very individualistic interpretations and theories you hold.

[harvey1]

I have not seen any theory of causation provided by you.

As I've said, I believe that causal laws exist which provide an explanation for one event causing another.

It is funny we got enough trouble working with a theory of the universe and causation and some how you think you have a long list of God's characteristics that must be all true.

That's the point here. You cannot solve your problem of causation if you seek a material approach to it. If you approach it with what amounts to a theist approach, there is no problem with causation, and in it also explains other problems with a purely material interpretation of the world.

Kind of simple minded.

Of course! That's what you want for any fundamental theory of everything. If it isn't simple, or if it isn't extremely straightforward, then it is probably wrong. Remember, we are dealing with the very beginning, and if reality is all that complicated we have no reason to expect that it happened that way.

It seem Saying a non-causal world would not be possible since existence is a causal principle is kind of redundant.

It's a little redundant, but it is meaningful. The point is that any kind of property requires causal talk for that property to have any kind of meaning and substance. Therefore, if we put causal talk above property talk, we can extrapolate to a universe such as ours without asking for absurd conditions to exist at the very beginning.

Yet this is your prof that a materialist world doesn't exist. It seems you have shown that God can not exist. Because for you God has no causal principle. The universe and God are on the same footing.

No quite. A principle of causality, while being simple-minded, is a particular kind of structure. For example, in order for B to causally follow from A, there must be some kind of satisfaction relation as to what it means for B to causally follow from A. If B doesn't causally follow from A, then in what sense can A cause B? The satisfaction relation is what determines that. If we look at the satisfaction relation in detail, though, it must by necessity require some kind of mental satisfaction. That is, if an all-intelligent, all-knowing mind is not satisfied that A doesn't cause B, then it is a fact that B does not causally follow from A. On the other hand, if an all-intelligent, all-knowing mind is satisfied that A causes B, then it is a fact that B causally follows from A. It is this affirmation to the satisfaction relation which makes causality possible, and therefore God is perfectly consistent with just this one principle being true.

They is no reason why either should be accepted over the other. IF your argument against "atheistic materialism" were true then neither would God exist.

As you can see, God would exist because God is needed in the principle of causality whereas the material world is not. The material world is a result of the principle of causality, whereas God is interwoven with the principle.

That doesn't follow. Your putting ideas in someone elses mouth and then say if they don't belive one then it is the other. From what little I know about quantum mechanics they are still working it out.

Show me it doesn't follow. Don't just cite your opinion. I already know you reject this argument, but you aren't giving any reasons for this opinion. As to quantum mechanics, I don't see how the non-regulative laws of QM would help you at all. Show me conceptually how quantum mechanics might be able to defeat this argument.

Unlike you who thinks they got all the answers from some collection of writing about 2500 to 2000 years ago

I've never made this argument. In fact, I think all knowledge is a work in progress. Please try to refer to what I believe and not what you think I believe.

I am open and my views could be wrong. Ask me tomorrow I might change my mind. I can't say the same for you because you don't think you could be wrong.

Of course I think I could be wrong. The difference though is that I am swayed by argument and I give arguments to sway others. You seem to be swayed by your opinion which seems to be immune to rational argument. What is the purpose of having debates if you've already determined what you believe is correct despite these conceptual problems? Your views seem to be based on faith and you get mad at me for exposing this.

No I don't have to give precedence to other views. Your the one who has to account for the causation of God. This is beyond your reach.

As you see above, I can demonstrate how the principle of causation implies the existence of God, so I'm in no such predicament.

I see no difference between God creating God or the universe creating the universe.

There's a big difference. Material things aren't based on axioms or principles, they are based on just being material things. That's fine if you can show how material things can account for causation and the sophisticated structure of the universe at an early stage in its evolution. But, it is apparent that material interpretations cannot do this. So, let's not give them precedence any longer. Let's put them in the ole' archives and work with ideas that show much more promise in understanding the world.

You kind of remind me of pop psychologist that say to a person that they think is an alcoholic. If he says he isn't then he is in denial.

What you fail to get, Cathar, is that there is a concept of denial. The concept is based on people actually denying the nature of reality as it is presented in front of them. What am I supposed to say? These people aren't in denial? Of course they are in denial. Look at this way, do you think atheists are taking it easy on theists when they make their arguments on the problem of evil? Do you think they'll accept a theists plea that an illogical response to the PoE is not being in denial? I've seen the atheist responses when theists have trouble with the PoE, and I know how atheists think when they see some theists unable to give a good response. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

Again you think your right and anyone that disagrees is in denial.

Well, if someone can respond to the argument then my opinion will change. It's not just an opinion that I hold without reason. Do you not think that rational argument is a good means to hold an opinion of being right?

I just feel that Atheist get a bad rap as well as Agnostics.

I don't feel this way. I feel that whoever can provide arguments should do so. We're here on this forum sharing all that we know, all that we believe, and offering rational arguments to support our views. If getting a bad rap is because they cannot respond to arguments, then let that be a bad rap. I assure you, if the situation were reversed you wouldn't see Spetey or QED or THH suggesting that theism was getting a bad rap.

Maybe revelation from God is not impossible. God just didn't do it. If God did then God did a bad job.

Why do you treat God as a person? Our sense of logic is not perfect, but I think we all agree that humans have a reasonable degree of logical sense as we build our theories about the world. It's not perfect, does that mean we have no logical sense because it is not perfect? Of course not. It just means that it provides only a certain degree of knowledge and that we have to keep improving on that.

I have notice that you have not shown any evidence that you didn't make up or read from your book. You mostly ignore others evidence and build up straw men to knock down with very individualistic interpretations and theories you hold.

Give me examples. I will definitely dispute this notion. However, on the reverse side of this, I have seen poor grammar from you, and not much in the way of argumentation to support your views (or even a hint of concern in doing so).

[Curious]

The laws do not determine the behaviour, it is the behaviours that determine the laws as we see them.

Of course, I disagree with that statement.

Of course you disagree but it is a fact, is it not, that the known laws of physics have been discovered by the observation and interpretation of these behaviours?

Laws is not a good choice of word really as this suggests that the objects adhere to the laws rather than the more correct view of objects having distinct behaviours that we interpret as the laws of physics.

Let's distinguish between these two concepts by regulative laws (your interpretation of laws) and non-regulative laws (my interpertation of laws).

Let's not confuse the issue. I do not say that the laws regulate the behaviour at all. The laws are a description of the behaviour.

Matter has particular properties depending on its type.

This sounds like matter conforms to a logical structure. If that's what you mean, then you would actually be arguing in favor of non-regulative laws.

I am actually just saying that chalk is not the same as cheese.

These properties determine it's behaviour and interactions.

It can't be the properties that determine its behaviour and interactions. The reason is that properties are only descriptions of the "types" of matter, and if there are only regulative laws, then these descriptions also describe the regulative patterns. Hence, the descriptions (or "properties")don't determine the regulative patterns, they describe the regulative patterns.

There is a problem that when you begin to redefine my argument you start to argue against your own definition rather than mine. Properties are not merely descriptions. A table might have a property of having 4 legs. This is not just a description but is a facet of it's nature. The behaviour could be stable while a table with a property of 1 leg would have an unstable behaviour. The behaviour is dependent upon the property in this respect.

Matter is not compelled to act in the way that it does, it acts that way because it is it's nature to do so.

In other words, the type of matter acts as the type acts. However, this doesn't tell us why the type always acts that way. It also doesn't tell us why there is a "type" of matter versus a grayscale where there is no real types. What causes one type of matter to stay that type, or convert to another type? Of course, if this material interpretation is correct, there are no causes or explanations to these questions.

It acts the way it does because behaviour is dependent upon property. There are different types of matter because there are different stable (and unstable) configurations of energy. Matter stays in one type because it is stable. If it is not stable it changes to a more stable form or releases it's energy.

This is problematical since you must postulate many characteristics that magically work together as a whole system, yet none of these characteristics have an explanation.

Science tries to do without magic. Many interactions are very well understood while others are more mysterious. Science still looks for answers though and seeks to prove them. It seems unreasonable to expect science to have all the answers when it is still in it's infancy. The data we have to formulate theories is far from complete so how could we have formulated the complete theory of everything especially given that very few people even attempt such an endeavour.

For example, you have different types of matter which must each interact with other types, each must persist through time, each must have a certain relationship with space, each must follow the same rules of interaction, each must be eternal in the past, etc., etc.. When you look at all of these factors, I think it becomes foolhardy to believe that nature is this complicated at its root.

All the above are simply behaviours that are determined by the properties. How simple is that?

I might add, Curious, since you are a theist, it becomes even more bizarre since in addition to all of these characteristics you must add God who comes with another long list of characteristics that must all be true at some fundamental level (i.e., without explanation). Me thinks this ontology is too fat and must go on a diet.

I don't say God is necessarily without explanation. I don't know God's characteristics either so I think it would be foolhardy to try to list them. I really don't see how my belief one way or the other is relevant to the argument. We are talking physical here and as far as I can see there are physical causes to physical events. Spiritual is a different argument entirely (so you see I am not a total materialist).

Matter does not distort space for any other reason than it is a property of matter.

The reason that non-regulative laws make much more sense, in my view, is that laws can be reduced to simpler laws, and those reduced to a set of axioms--perhaps axioms that are true only if there is merely a principle of causality operating in the world. If a principle of causality operates, then one could justify this by saying that any non-causal world would not be possible since existence is a causal principle. See how simple that is, and how logical and naturally forthcoming that is? No need to invent 101 characteristics of fundamental matter which just "is." Only one principle need be at the root of the world: causality. That's certainly not too luxurious of a principle to postulate at the beginning.

What is more simple than property. A distinct entity can change by addition to become something else. Two waves can combine to form a different wave. All mathematical structures are built using simple addition. Addition creates geometry, structure and form. There are not 101 invented characteristics here. New geometries and structures have new properties and subsequently new behaviours but all abide by the rules of addition because that is how they are made.

[harvey1]

it is a fact, is it not, that the known laws of physics have been discovered by the observation and interpretation of these behaviours?

But, it is a fact, is it not, that new behaviors of the universe have been discovered by using new theoretical structures to predict new, unobserved phenomena?

Let's not confuse the issue. I do not say that the laws regulate the behaviour at all. The laws are a description of the behaviour.

Yes, you say that laws are equivalent to regularities.

The behaviour could be stable while a table with a property of 1 leg would have an unstable behaviour. The behaviour is dependent upon the property in this respect.

This suggests that properties are dependent on laws. If so, then I agree. However, you wish to say that laws do not determine the nature of matter. You say that properties of matter determines the behavior. Your example should demonstrate how the property of being a one leg table has unstable behavior without referring to outside laws (e.g., gravitational pull, etc.). Of course, this is impossible since every material object is subject to laws of nature to explain its actions. So, why treat the fundamental nature of the universe any differently than how we treat common objects?

It acts the way it does because behaviour is dependent upon property. There are different types of matter because there are different stable (and unstable) configurations of energy.

This suggests to me that different types of matter respond to lawful conditions in the universe differently. If you wish to say that the properties of matter determine behavior, then why refer to a law as some kind of explanation for the stable or unstable nature of some configuration of energy? Why not just say that we define "unstable" as that which has this configuration and we define "stable" as that which has this configuration. There is no "why" as to the reason one is stable and the other is not. That's where you are on a slippery slope since mathematical structures give us a reason (e.g., conforms to a minimum principle of least energy or least time, contains a symmetry or follows from a conservation principle, etc.).

Matter stays in one type because it is stable. If it is not stable it changes to a more stable form or releases it's energy.

But it is "stable" because it is a certain configuration of energy, so that seems like a circular argument. Why not just say that there is no reason why matter stays in one type? That would seem to me to be a more consistent answer.

Science tries to do without magic. Many interactions are very well understood while others are more mysterious. Science still looks for answers though and seeks to prove them.

Yep. Science seeks laws that are consistent with logical and mathematical explication.

It seems unreasonable to expect science to have all the answers when it is still in it's infancy. The data we have to formulate theories is far from complete so how could we have formulated the complete theory of everything especially given that very few people even attempt such an endeavour.

That's true if the issue is a scientific issue. However, when the issue of material causation is a philosophical issue. This is because we are talking about the nature of existence and the nature of cause, hence it is subject to philosophical analysis. If we can show that any answer leads to an unresolvable paradox, then this is a good philosophical argument casting strong doubts on the philosophical belief in question.

I don't say God is necessarily without explanation. I don't know God's characteristics either so I think it would be foolhardy to try to list them. I really don't see how my belief one way or the other is relevant to the argument. We are talking physical here and as far as I can see there are physical causes to physical events. Spiritual is a different argument entirely (so you see I am not a total materialist).

It's relevant here because we are two theists having a conversation about the fundamental nature of the universe. If you wish to favor one fundamental approach over another, that's fine, but when you wish to favor two fundamental approaches, that's stretching your resources very thin. I don't see a tremendous need for God if you think material causes material, it's bordering on superfluous. Also, causally I would be interested how God can cause anything to happen if God is not composed of material substance. It seems like you have two opposing systems of thought that conflict with each other.

What is more simple than property. A distinct entity can change by addition to become something else. Two waves can combine to form a different wave. All mathematical structures are built using simple addition. Addition creates geometry, structure and form. There are not 101 invented characteristics here. New geometries and structures have new properties and subsequently new behaviours but all abide by the rules of addition because that is how they are made.

It is simple but contradictory. If you have any kind of primitive action of some property, then every primitive action is a brute fact. So, you need to count all the primitive no-explanation elements in a material ontology:

1. Space
2. Time
3. Configuration of energy A
4. Persistance through time of A
5. Movement through space of A
6. Change of movement through space for A
7. Configuration of energy B
8. Persistance through time of B
9. Movement through space of B
10. Change of movement through space of B
11. Interaction of A and B (type 1 interaction)
12. Interaction of A and B (type 2 interaction)
13. Etc., etc.

Now, I drastically simplified this. Even a basic computer algorithm could do nothing interesting with any of the above. In addition, I've assumed that you could have material causation, but the movement in time immediately brings up the problem of material causation. With all of these behaviors being brute facts (without explanation) combined with a lack of rational account of material causation, the only sensible thing to do is to give up this account. It doesn't make any sense.

[The Happy Humanist]

Ten years from now, you will be an atheist. I'm serious. Mark the date.

Is this the atheist version of Christ returning in 10 years? Or, let me guess, you were once a Christian and came from a fundamentalist church where they set dates. Back to the old guessing mill.

In any case, THH, you miss an important point here. You exchange rational argument for wishful thinking. I would say the thinking goes a lot like this:

Oh, this guy is a pain in the butt. Rather than me work through a good response, I'll wish him to be an atheist within 10 years. Hmm... that's a good idea because it takes the onus of me having to respond to him, and what the hell, I'm pyschic anyway (even though I don't "believe" in being pyschic).

You are obviously highly intelligent, and you have correctly surmised that the answer to this lies somewhere in some logical path, which you seem bent on forging yourself. Unfortunately, along that path lies a lot of philosophical quicksand, gobbledy-gook that you've picked up from here and there, that amounts to no more than bisecting a sneeze.

If you were famous do you realize every astrologer, every fortune teller, every psychic would be repeating your words in every argument from here to eternity that tried to discount their beliefs? Do you see how dangerous it is to offer such a view as an argument? Sometimes philosophical views create the views of those for the next generation (e.g., Marx and Engels). If your view were to ever catch on, I could see the 22nd century as being a world where rationality has respect no longer. Well, of course, you're psychic so you know that would never happen.

But you're incisive and inquisitive, and an independent thinker - of all the theists I've debated, you're the first who has not fallen back on the usual Pascal's Wager nonsense or prophecies or "I just know." I came to this forum looking to see if anyone had any really original defenses for theism, and you, of all the people here, showed me that there is some original thought out there. I have enjoyed sparring with you, and I learned quite a few things. Thank you.

That sounds like a goodbye. You haven't heard my other arguments yet. Don't leave...

And mark the date. You will be an atheist within ten years.

I try to stay humble, so I make no predictions for the future. I realize the dark force is out there and as Yoda would say, "ready he is not for the dark side." So, I'll just take those 10 years one day at a time and listen to Master Yoda on staying clear of the dark side.

Yeah, you're right, Harv, I'm cutting and running. Partly because the Katrina situation has created a whole lot of work for me, and partly because, well, I think I've defeated you already a couple of times, but I realized some time ago that no matter what I say, you will find something in some philosophy book to counter me. I just don't have time for that.

I gave you my "Malak" Anti-Cosmological argument (the existence of the universe disproves the existence of an all-good, all-knowing God), and you mumbled something about his having to "prove a theorem"...as if a God existing outside of time would have to prove anything to himself. I gave you my idea for a non-sentient universe creator-thingy, and you came back with some gobbledy-gook that no one here, not just me, but no one here understood. Of course, that doesn't mean its invalid...anyway, it's useless, I don't have a chance.

So, you've won by attrition. Sorry, don't have time for your further arguments.

Take care.

[harvey1]

I think I've defeated you already a couple of times, but I realized some time ago that no matter what I say, you will find something in some philosophy book to counter me. I just don't have time for that.

Well, I certainly have a different perspective. Btw, this statement comes very close to being like a California blonde with a mirror, except in this case you are admiring something about yourself other than a beautiful face.

Best of luck...