Friday, July 10, 2009

Restart of Paul's Arguments

This youtube clip is in response to Paul's post called kaput. The big picture is that Paul's recent dictionary definition put him where Steve was several months ago and likely this path would have similar results to my exhange with Steve (i.e. him saying here's why such and such squares with determinism and me saying here's why it does not).

3 comments:

The Seeking Disciple said...

Good stuff. Your counter arguments are good.

Anonymous said...

Dan,

I am at a total loss. I have copied and saved numerous of your claims made in our debate. Your comments here seem completely at odds with whta you've been arguing. From where I'm standing, I gave the *identical* argument you did. I went *just as far* as you did in citing the dictionary. Anyway, I do not want to believe that you are completely dishonest, or so bent on not eating crow that you would change horses midstream. Therefore I request that you formalize your argument from the dictionary *using only the information you have given in your initial posts I was responding too (IOW, no ad hocing or moving goal posts ).

So, again, please present a formalized version of your argument from the dictionary. Thank you.

Godismyjudge said...

Fair request. I will have to dig through some old posts, so hopefully it won't take too long pull it all together.

God be with you,
Dan