Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[kmoney]

:noway: That was one LONG post by Hilston!

 

[Hilston]

Responses to posts #61-75

Responses to posts #61-75

The following post contains replies to:

• mighty_duck
• Balder
• aharvey
• SUTG

mighty_duck

The other major quibble I have regards all this talk of absolute knowldge, when the basis for it is a presupposition that in itself is uncertain. There was also no mention of how Solipsism is refuted. ]

Solipsism is self-refuting the moment someone other than me asserts it. If someone were to say to me, "I'm a solipsist," my response would be: "No I'm not." As legend has it (I can't find the quote), Bertrand Russell received a letter from a friend that said (paraphrasing): "I've become a solipsist and it's wonderful! I wonder why more people don't try it."

Balder:

Are you suggesting that Carver's question is without warrant? In Korea, does one often see numerical sequences such as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,9? Does a child in Korea celebrate their 10th birthday after their 8th, followed by their 9th?

No, not without warrant; just not requiring the existence of the Judeo-Christian God to ground it. As I stated, experience and convention are sufficient to explain his expectation of a particular order to things: "If these conditions pertain, we call it this; if these other conditions pertain, we call it that."

Can you name a single culture or convention that understands the number line in this way or any variation? (i.e. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,9). Can you give an example where such a number would be useful?

I expect that you will point past this particular instance to the general, asking if experience and order themselves can be explained in the absence of God. And here I will agree that the atheist materialist worldview is hard-pressed to explain the emergence of sentience out of a wholly insentient universe. Where I disagree is with the assertion that no perspective but the Christian one is capable of accounting for this; but we've been down that road ...

Yes, we have, but not to my satisfaction. I recall making some progress in my understanding, but it was slow-going (lots of unfamiliar terms) and things got incredibly busy in a hurry for me at that time. Perhaps in the future we can try again?

How is the Creationist view superior? It is superior, and in fact, exclusively rational, because God, the Creator of eyes, noses, taste buds, eardrums, nerve endings, the brain that processes the data, and the mind that cogitates it, assures the believer, through His Word and the work of the Holy Spirit in the experience of each believer, that our senses are generally reliable, barring obvious exclusions.

To return closer to the discussion of evolution, do you have an explanation for why God gave human beings tail bones and human males nipples?

If you'll pardon my momentary lapse into Socratic Irony, I'd like to ask: Why did you choose to ask this question about human tail bones and human male nipples in particular?

In another discussion, Clete talked about God being able to perceive his environment. Does God inhabit an environment, and if so, is it co-eternal with him?

Clete and I differ on this point. In my view, God is infinite and transcends the Spatio-Temporal realm. Also, in my view, God is Immanent, and exists through and through the Spatio-temporal realm ("For in Him we live and move and have our existence"). The doctrines of transcendence and immanence jointly describe God's omnipresence.

Do you, or Clete, think that a "God with senses and an environment" is necessary to rationally explain the existence of creatures with senses and an environment?

Speaking only for myself, if "senses" and "environment" are being defined in humanistic finite terms, the answer is no.

mighty_duck:

Again, a well defined SUTG may not be debunkable. We might find out that we just have different names for the same omniscient Being.

a SUTG is very well defined. He is an ape-like creature that lives and breathes, and occasionally posts in this forum. He has a funny looking goatee artificially painted on his face. He may not have created all of existence, but he's Omniscient. How do I know? I presupposed it. I will also presuppose that everything in this post is inerrant. How do I know that logic is vald? Because SUTG says it is, and he's always right.

To pursue this line of reasoning, at any point at which the attributes of your SUTG are contrary or contrast the nature of the God of the Bible, the SUTG will be seen as self-refuting, incoherent and irrational. For example, the SUTG cannot be omniscient unless he has also created all of existence. His knowledge cannot be ultimate whilst having only finite power, and vice versa.

Fun fact: while SUTG's morals are very different the God of the Blible (for example SUTG doesn't condone genocide, slavery, and other horrible things), ...

When you have a chance, have a look at this (it's not long): The Difference Between God's Decrees and God's Will

... he is nevertheless a perfect moral being. Morality is defined as being whatever SUTG says it is, and it is in his nature to be moral.

Perhaps the SUTG is the God of the Bible, but you've just not made the connection yet?

In a rational debate that sets out to resolve a difference of opinion about the nature of reality or of the origins and diversity of life, the claim, "everything just is," is an admission of irrationality, and thus a concession to defeat. The person offering such a claim should not bother showing up for a debate.

This just smacks of God of the gaps.

Not at all. God does not merely "fill a gap." He is the very Glue that holds all of reality together, not just the gaps, providing the conditions necessary for rational thought, for the laws of logic, for the pursuit and acquisition of knowledge, for moral judgments and for human dignity.

While my worldview may not be able to "account" for logic (more on this later), that doesn't make it invalid.

Without a basis for rationality, your view is reduced to absurdity. If you want to therefore claim the nature of reality is irrational, then perhaps you might have a "valid" point. But don't bother debating, if that's the case. The enterprise of debating assumes the validity of reason and rationality.

While your worldview does "account" for logic, it doesn't make it valid.

A rational explanation for the tools we use to communicate and reason is validation. A failure to rationally explain the tools one uses to communicate and reason is an invalidation. On the non-Theistic Evolutionist view, the tools come by way of magic. On the Creationist view, they come by way of God.

A few thousand years ago someone with my worldview would not have been able to explain why the sun seems to go around the world. Someone with your worldview would have used the ever useful goddidt.
And how did God obtain this gift of logic? Oh, its in his nature. In other words, "it just is".

That's not the Creationist argument. God did not "obtain" the gift of logic. Logic is a symbolic and finite way of describing His nature and attributes. "Where did God come from?" is a valid question. But it is ultimately unanswerable in human finite terms because God's very existence transcends humans, finitude, and terminology. The fact that the question is unanswerable does not invalidate the Creationist view, given the existence of a personal, sentient, logical and purposeful God. His existence and attributes satisfy the conditions needed justify our use of the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature. Non-theistic assumptions do not. One must believe in magic in order for laws and diversity and regularity to arise out of chance and singularity and chaos.

If you can, please also define "account".

Account for = rationally explain.

Lastly, why can't we define logic as a formal way of describing how humans reason? If this is true, then logic came in the same way we did, which is what this debate is really about.

It happens to be my view that logic is a formal way of describing how humans reason. It is also my view that logic came in the same way that humans did. The difference is, you believe humans and logic came in by magic. I believe they came in by the purposeful and special creative work of a personal God.

Excellent questions m_d. Please keep up the good work.

aharvey:

As fascinating as a debate on whether evolution is science in which one side explicitly plans to avoid discussing the scientific evidence concerning evolution promises to be, I must limit myself to the occasional observation.

This is true. Knowledge, that is true and certain knowledge, begins with the fear (reverence, respect) of the Lord. Apart from the existence of God, the laws and methods you use to navigate through life make no sense. You must blindly assume them to be magically trustworthy. All knowledge based on the blind application of these unverified laws and method will ever be suspect. Strangely, we find evolutionists who say this very thing: No knowledge is certain; everything is subject to revision, pending superior evidence to the contrary.

That's all scientists, Jim, not just evolutionists, and if you think it's strange for scientists to think this way, you are going to have a difficult time making an intelligent statement about what qualifies as "science."

aharvey, you may be missing the point. May I ask you a multiple choice question? Here it is:

What is your view of the following statement?: Two plus two equals four.

• Certainly not
• Not likely
• Don't know
• Very likely
• Certainly

... your assumption is incorrect, evolutionists don't have blind faith in evolutionary theory.

Really? I will be interested to know how they have they proven the theory, but only after you explain to me how they have proven the verity of the method(s) by which the evolutionary theory has been developed.

Ironically, the only people who claim to have true and certain knowledge about anything derive that certainty entirely from blind faith in _____ (you're welcome to fill in the blank). So you've got it exactly backwards.

The Creationist faith is not blind at all. It is certain, unwavering, sure and unshakable. This certainty is communicated to the Creationist from God Himself, and repeatedly and reciprocally testified in the believer's experience through God's Word. So when the Creationist considers the question of origins, it is not with blind acceptance that he affirms the account provided by the Bible. It is rather with certitude and confidence, supported by the Creationist interpretation of evidence, understood according to the laws of logic and the principles of induction and the uniformity of nature, all of which make sense only on the Creationist paradigm.

However, I would find it most entertaining for someone to try to demonstrate how one could believe they had certain knowledge of absolute truths without having blind faith in anything.

I should have asked this earlier. Better now than never. Please explain what you mean by "blind faith". Is it a redundant phrase in your view?

And I know you've said your faith isn't blind faith, but saying they're different ain't the same as showing us how. One could make the case that "faith" is to "blind faith" as "circle" is to "round circle."

Biblically, and by experience, believers have faith, not because they have convinced themselves of believing something for which they have no proof. Rather, believers have faith because it was given to them as a gift from God. I'm not saying this proves anything; I'm just giving you some context for the Christian position. The Jewish patriarch Abraham knew he had a right standing before God, not because he convinced himself to believe in God, but rather because he was given the gift of faith by God, and "his faith was accounted as righteousness." (Romans 4:1ff) That is, the gift of faith that Abraham received from the Lord was the affirmation (the accounting) to Abraham that he was viewed as justified before God. Such a faith is not blind or tentative. It is sure, certain, unwavering, not because of any effort or merit on the part of the believer, but because it is communicated to them from God and affirmed in His Word.

SUTG:

If you're going to be intellectually honest with yourself, then yes, you must question everything, including the reason why you would expect 9 to follow 8, instead of 10. However, if you're satisfied with operating on blind assumption and magic, then no.

It is best to go with the modern logicians on this one. That 2+2=4, or that P^Q implies P, and all of the other truths of logic, are true because we defined them that way.

Question, SUTG: On your view, was modus ponens true before the existence of human minds to formalize it? If we defined 2+2=5, would two pairs of objects added together suddenly produce 5 objects?

They give us no information about the world, and are true in every possible world.

So, in a world in which there were no one to define modus ponens, would modus ponens still be true?

What would your response be to Bertrand Russell's statement about the inductive principle that I cited in my Opening Statement in the BRIX?

If I recall the quote correctly, it is simply another example of the Humean Thesis. This is one of the most popular areas in modern philosophy. It is always fun to introduce it to those who are unfamiliar with Hume's work. Of course, as humans, we have no choice but to use induction!

We haven't? Sounds almost law-like, doesn't it?

And, to this date, no-one has been able to formalize a good way to determine whether inductive reasoning is appropriate in a given situation.

Of course. Any way we could come up with would invariably beg the question, because the very effort to "determine" anything whatsoever already assumes the verity of inductive reasoning.

You are probably familiar with examles of inductive reasoning leading to false conclusions.

Of course, but the false conclusions are not the result of a failure of induction, but rather a deficit of information.

Positing the Christian God adds nothing to the debate.

Sure it does. It adds a rational foundation to one's reasoning and conclusions. The true "nothing" in the debate is the absence of a rational basis for discursive thought and logical inferences.

mighty_duck (again)

As I have said before, strategically, there are really only two ways he can win this debate:
1. Object to discussing "is Science valid?", and focus on "is evolution science?".

But I don't dispute the validity of science. I dispute the unjustified use of it by the non-Theist/Evolutionist.

Such as the implied irreducable complexity of the eye, ear, etc. Refuting this line, while maintaining a strong line on definitions, would have meant victory.

I reject the irreducible complexity thesis.

2. "Answer the fool according to his folly". There are any number of refutations to Jim's TAG argument. The problem is that stratnerd has been hoodwinked in to posting under the assumption that this is a debate on evolution. It is not.

Are you aware of how often I use the term and make reference to Evolution in these debates?

My notes of stratnerd's 2nd post:
1. Others who could reconcile evolution with God. While a worthy attempt, every theist thinks he has a monopoly on the truth, which means that every other theists are wrong.

This is false. Even the Bible warns against being unduly confident regarding the superiority of one's view. Furthermore, biblical theists affirm that the Bible, not individuals, has the monopoly on the truth.

And for any theist reading this that thinks I am wrong, think how wrong other denomination of your own faith got it. Take a look at posts here mocking Catholics/Baptists etc.

I ridicule Catholics and Baptists, but I don't believe I have a monopoly on the truth. I don't ridicule them because "I have the truth and they don't;" rather, I ridicule them for believing irrational false doctrines despite having true doctrines staring them in the face.

The "no true scottsman" fallacy will rear its ugly head in Jim's rebuttal: Those guys were wrong, God created the world in 6 days, 6000 years ago.

They're not wrong simply because they disagree with me. They're wrong because they disagree with what the Bible teaches.

From now on, all he can do is follow this needlessly complicated philosophical tail. We won't get any resolution on this matter.

Sure we will!

5. Misunderstands Jim's stand on evidence. Evidence must be interpreted using your worldview, and if your worldview happens to say that the Bible is true (absolute truth, it's an axiom), then no competing evidence is going to change that.

And if your worldview happens to say that ontological naturalism is true, then no competing evidence is going to change that.

If Jim is willing to throw away every scientific progress we've made, he would have lost the debate regardless of the success of his argument.

Not only do I embrace every scientific progress we've made, I affirm that only those who adhere to the Creationist paradigm can embrace and affirm scientific progress and do so rationally. The non-Theist/Evolution can do so as well, but apart from acknowledging the existence and attributes of God, they will do so irrationally.

SUTG (again)

There are several ways of attacking the TAG, and all of them are fatal.

I'm curious to see examples.

The "impossibility of the contrary" sounds nice to say, but since there are no presuppositionalists that can show this, the contrary is possible.

You seem to miss the point of the IOTC claim. No presuppositionalist makes this claim on his own authority or experience. No finite person could know such a thing on his own authority or experience, for that would require universal knowledge and universal experience. The presuppositionalist makes the claim based on the testimony of the Bible. He then attempts to demonstrate the Biblical claim by applying biblical principles of argumentation to a particular debate.

Also, alternative worldviews can be proposed that stand up to scrutiny just as well as asserting the Christian God does. And so on...

For example?

Finally, it has to be asked of what use logic and rationality are that you even want your worldview to 'justify' or 'account' for them in the first place.

Couldn't we also then ask of what use theoretical predictions are that you even require that one 'justify' or 'account' for them in the first place?

Do you disagree with Stratnerd's requirement to justify theoretical predictions? Stratnerd wrote:

What do we mean falsify? It means to build a test or make observations based on supposed mechanisms at work and if that mechanism is absent then the results or matching observation will not turn out as predicted . The way I build predictions is by means of “if-then” statements with justification. If you cannot justify it then you can’t make the “then” connection ... We can only include a particular hypothesis (model) if we can justify it ... It’s not enough to fill in the blank –that’s merely up to your imagination but you need to be able to justify what you put in there. ... So, in summary, my definition of science is: the pursuit of reliable knowledge (acknowledging that these are tentative explanations) via making justifiable hypotheses and testing such hypothesis is observation or experiment. ... So to determine if evolution is science then we should see if we can make “if-then” statements that are justifiable and that we can make observations or experiments. ... Justification: As time goes by animals are evolution and becoming part of the fossil record.

End of page 5 (posts 61-75) replies.

Thanks to everyone who has participated in the Grandstands discussions.

Not redeemable for cash,
Jim

 

[Hilston]

Addenda:

I should have noted that I plan (but cannot promise) to respond to subsequent posts as time allows.

You're soaking in it,
Jim

 

[truthteller86]

BR_IX Vocabulary Link #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_%28philosophy%29

BR_IX Vocabulary Link #2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy.

For the recovering public school students. I found these links to be extremely helpful prior to reading the posts, particularly the list of types of fallacies, which includes the all too popular non-sequitur.

 

[jhodgeiii]

Knight, Hilston's 2nd post has:

* A problem with the QUOTE feature just before his HQ7. Was a tad bit confusing at first.

* A missing HQ8a

Both problems were identified using the inductive principle.

 

[truthteller86]

Round II

Round II

This hits on the biggest problem I have with creationism, specifically Biblical literalism, as an episteme. If you believe that revelation, not personal or even witnessed, but to another person is the source of knowledge and that knowledge is absolutely true then evidence has no importance - no relevance – no meaning. In that case, the creationist is immune to all contrary evidence.

And this is the difference between the true Christian and the non-believer: That an internal, supernatural change (regeneration) takes place in the life of a new believer at the moment of conversion. See 2 Cor 5:17. This is why non-theistic Evolutionists can not begin to understand or relate to the Creationist worldview. Their pride stands in the way and will be their eternal demise.

4. Natural vs. Supernatural.
... In fact, the Creationist view is that God holds every atom together and supernaturally sustains them from obliterating....
...Our understanding of the natural depends upon and is sustained by the supernatural. Natural science should not pretend that the supernatural doesn't exist, or that God is not holding nature together....

May I clarify this for the theistic readers as follows: In fact, the Creationist (Settled) view is that God holds every atom together and supernaturally sustains them from obliterating....
Not all Creationists are Settled view proponents. I fully acknowledge this is not up for discussion in the debate, however since Hilston referenced God at work holding the universe together more than once in his round II post, I felt it was important to point out there a large number of Creationists (especially here on TOL) who will not agree with seemingly universal views proposed by "our guy" in this debate. (And Hilston, you are "our guy") Open view Creationists believe God rested after creation and like the man that builds a fence, God does not need to continually "hold" the fence up after He builds it, lest it fall.

My claim is that the reason nature is uniform, regular and orderly, and the reason human beings are able to comprehend them, is because the creation reflects and is analogous to the nature of its Creator.

:up: Likewise, we know many (non-purposeful) irregularities and disorderly observations in nature reflect a fallen world suffering from the physical effects of sin.
Carry on Jim…you’re doing awesome !

 

[mighty_duck]

Jim,

On behalf of all us skeptics, I would like to thank you for taking the time to answer all our questions. It has made this debate very interactive for us, and is very much appreciated!

Solipsism is self-refuting the moment someone other than me asserts it. If someone were to say to me, "I'm a solipsist," my response would be: "No I'm not." As legend has it (I can't find the quote), Bertrand Russell received a letter from a friend that said (paraphrasing): "I've become a solipsist and it's wonderful! I wonder why more people don't try it."

The question isn't stated quite that way though. It's : how can you rationally explain (account for) that Solipsism is false?
Since Solipsism is considered a bankrupt idea in philisophical circles, I'm willing to drop it if you don't bring it up in the debate

To pursue this line of reasoning, at any point at which the attributes of your SUTG are contrary or contrast the nature of the God of the Bible, the SUTG will be seen as self-refuting, incoherent and irrational. For example, the SUTG cannot be omniscient unless he has also created all of existence. His knowledge cannot be ultimate whilst having only finite power, and vice versa.

Perhaps the SUTG is the God of the Bible, but you've just not made the connection yet?

SUTG is not a god at all, he is just omniscient. He certainly didn't create all of existence. Why is this self refuting, incoherent or irrational? Please read below why this is perfectly rational

When you have a chance, have a look at this (it's not long): The Difference Between God's Decrees and God's Will

Very interesting stuff, but it seems damaging to your case. I'll bring this up later when you further explain how you inferred that The Creator is actually the Christian God.

Without a basis for rationality, your view is reduced to absurdity. If you want to therefore claim the nature of reality is irrational, then perhaps you might have a "valid" point. But don't bother debating, if that's the case. The enterprise of debating assumes the validity of reason and rationality.

Rationality is an axiom. That is different from saying it is irrational, instead that it needs no rationalization to be considered true. If you want to argue that because we don't know "why" it is, true it is therefore false, then that is an argument from ignorance.

A rational explanation for the tools we use to communicate and reason is validation. A failure to rationally explain the tools one uses to communicate and reason is an invalidation. On the non-Theistic Evolutionist view, the tools come by way of magic. On the Creationist view, they come by way of God.

And God comes by way of magic. You just bring the problem one level further.

"Where did God come from?" is a valid question. But it is ultimately unanswerable in human finite terms because God's very existence transcends humans, finitude, and terminology. The fact that the question is unanswerable does not invalidate the Creationist view, given the existence of a personal, sentient, logical and purposeful God.

Account for = rationally explain.

Sorry, but that is a cop out, also known as special pleading. If you answer "where did God come from?" with "that is unanswerable", then you are being irrational (according to your own terms), and your worldview is incoherent.
Then you say that If god exists, then it is perfectly rational to say god exists. Tautology.

I think you misdefine rationality. In truth, both you, I and a SUTGist are ALL rational!

Asking one to explain the rationality of an axiom is a non-question, since axioms are defined as true without need for further rationalization. If I can infer something from my axioms using logic, then it is rational. My axioms include the validity of logic, while yours include God,
What you are doing is judging one logical system with axioms from another, and then claiming it is irrational. This works both ways, since using my axioms, your conclusions are irrational. We can't judge a system externally to determine if it is rational, rather we must determine if it internally rational.

Then the question becomes which axioms are "better". I can think of some criteria :devil:

And if your worldview happens to say that ontological naturalism is true, then no competing evidence is going to change that.

Agreed! Similar point to the one I made above.

Except Naturalism is nice and flexible, since anything we discover will become "natural".

This is false. Even the Bible warns against being unduly confident regarding the superiority of one's view. Furthermore, biblical theists affirm that the Bible, not individuals, has the monopoly on the truth.

I ridicule Catholics and Baptists, but I don't believe I have a monopoly on the truth. I don't ridicule them because "I have the truth and they don't;" rather, I ridicule them for believing irrational false doctrines despite having true doctrines staring them in the face.
They're not wrong simply because they disagree with me. They're wrong because they disagree with what the Bible teaches.

I suppose this is similar to the Argument from Confusion. Catholics and Baptists certainly think they are rational, and given their axioms, I suspect they are. This is more evidence for the self-refuting nature of your belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, or perhaps just how errant mankind is at interpreting it. In logic terms:

P1 A is true.
P2 !A is true.

Assuming our axioms include both premises, we can prove ANYTHING.
Replace A with "Jesus's last words were "it is Finished" ", and you may see my point.
I don't want to go too far in to biblical critisism, for the plain fact the natural language is difficult to translate in to formal premises, and can be interpreted in many ways and "in context" is problematic. Saying that it is inerrant is a dangerous proposition.

Not only do I embrace every scientific progress we've made, I affirm that only those who adhere to the Creationist paradigm can embrace and affirm scientific progress and do so rationally. The non-Theist/Evolution can do so as well, but apart from acknowledging the existence and attributes of God, they will do so irrationally.

Even the scientific progress done based on evolution? You must realize that much of our biological research is based on or references Evolution. This may be remedied if we better define the grey area between (E)volution and (e)volution. Is a virus mutating Evolution or evolution? How much can a virus mutate and still be considered evolution?

 

[koban]

Have you looked in to the recent research on Intelligent Design and do you feel as I do that it will be brought in to this battle? From what I have researched so far I find the argument for more powerfull then against.

Welcome to TOL!

Gotta ask-

Me talking

or

Metal King ?

 

[koban]

There it is again!
Metalking please read this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Ignorance
Also, are you Metal King or Me talking?

:doh:

 

[fool]

Great minds think alike.

 

[truthteller86]

...Why do we need to resolve only those two?

I see the possible theories regarding the origins of the universe to be infinite.

While there is only one correct answer. It seems to me the investigator would do himself a grave diservice by only examining two theories.

fool, would you agree there are only two broad possibilities as to the origin of the universe:

1) Either it has always been here

2) Or it was created at some point

I do not want to start a new thread on the 1st two laws of thermodynamics, but I was just curious if you at least agreed with these two fundamental assumptions re: the universe.

 

[fool]

fool, would you agree there are only two broad possibilities as to the origin of the universe:

1) Either it has always been here

2) Or it was created at some point

I do not want to start a new thread on the 1st two laws of thermodynamics, but I was just curious if you at least agreed with these two fundamental assumptions re: the universe.

I think that to agree to the above statement would be the same as positing a statement about that which I am investigating.
As a wise old man I once knew used to say "I don't have the answers, I just have the questions".

 

[truthteller86]

I think that to agree to the above statement would be the same as positing a statement about that which I am investigating.

As a wise old man I once knew used to say "I don't have the answers, I just have the questions".

Fair enough, however, you can think from now until the day you die and you will never come up with a third option. I'll not ask you to publicly choose sides, but would you at least acknowledge those are the only two possibilities. I'm also not inferring the mechanism for option (2), just that it had a starting point...

 

[fool]

Fair enough, however, you can think from now until the day you die and you will never come up with a third option. I'll not ask you to publicly choose sides, but would you at least acknowledge those are the only two possibilities. I'm also not inferring the mechanism for option (2), just that it had a starting point...

I believe the Hindu option includes it always being there and recreating itself on some sort of schedule.

 

[Metalking]

Your link isn't working....Me talking.

 

[fool]

I'm far from an expert on Hinduism.

 

[fool]

Your link isn't working....Me talking.

It just worked for me and it worked for me where Koban quoted it.
Maybe you haven't spilled as much beer on your keyboard as I have.
Try clicking real hard.

 

[truthteller86]

I believe the Hindu option includes it always being there and recreating itself on some sort of schedule.

Even if that's the case, that would still be option (1) It has always been here. I see you are resolved not to answer and that's okay. Hey, when you decide to clear out some of your unneeded PM mail, let me know. Jeez.

 

[fool]

Even if that's the case, that would still be option (1) It has always been here. I see you are resolved not to answer and that's okay. Hey, when you decide to clear out some of your unneeded PM mail, let me know. Jeez.

OK.
I just went in there and broomed out about a third of it, so fire away.

 

[koban]

Fair enough, however, you can think from now until the day you die and you will never come up with a third option. I'll not ask you to publicly choose sides, but would you at least acknowledge those are the only two possibilities. I'm also not inferring the mechanism for option (2), just that it had a starting point...

There's an obvious third option.