Re: MD Hume, Paley and Intelligent Design

From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Apr 26 2005 - 15:30:58 BST

Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD Access to Quality"

Previous message: Erin: "Re: MD Transubstantiation"
In reply to: Arlo J. Bensinger: "Re: MD Hume, Paley and Intelligent Design"
Next in thread: Arlo Bensinger: "Re: MD Hume, Paley and Intelligent Design"
Reply: Arlo Bensinger: "Re: MD Hume, Paley and Intelligent Design"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Arlo,

> Who's engaging in "philosophy" and who's "pontificating"?

That's really an unfair comparison, Arlo. Mark is engaged in proving that
all ID arguments are invalid. I'm postulating a valuistic philosophy that
is founded on the concept of an intelligent designer.

Given my assertion that "man cannot prove the existence of a creator by
reason", what 'reason' would I have to attack anti-ID arguments?

Essentially,
Ham

MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD Access to Quality"
Previous message: Erin: "Re: MD Transubstantiation"
In reply to: Arlo J. Bensinger: "Re: MD Hume, Paley and Intelligent Design"
Next in thread: Arlo Bensinger: "Re: MD Hume, Paley and Intelligent Design"
Reply: Arlo Bensinger: "Re: MD Hume, Paley and Intelligent Design"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 26 2005 - 15:59:37 BST