[Buddha-l] Fighting creationism

[SJZiobro at cs.com]

In a message dated 4/3/2007 6:57:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rhayes at unm.edu 
writes: 
> On Tuesday 03 April 2007 16:25, SJZiobro at cs.com wrote:
> 
> >Surely all three posibiities are reasonable and one can educe arguments to
> >show why they are so.  Apparently, this thread was a joke, however, so
> >perhaps it's wise to leave it alone and leave people smiling.
> 
> All three possibilities are reasonable in the sense that they are not 
> self-contradictory. My point is was that no one of them in more reasonable 
> than the others. It is not obvious to me that one can adduce 
> non-question-begging arguments for any of them. The best one can do is to 
> lay 
> out the possibilities. In choosing one of them in preference to the others 
> one leaves reason behind and enters the realm of dogmatism.

Then one is left at least with a possible conclusion that the three (1.  the 
world was created; 2. the world is eternal; 3. the world is and will remain 
the result of an infinite regress, which in some sense is a subset of the second 
option here) can neither be proved nor disproved.  If you judge this to be 
compatible with the import of your remarks here -- save the last -- then perhaps 
we are more in agreement than not.  I take exception to your last remark, 
however.  If one does choose one of the three possibilities over the other two 
I'm more inclined to see that choice as being the fruit of making a  reasoned 
judgment when oriented rationally.  This judgment is not rightly characterized 
as entering the realm of dogmatism so much as it is a refusal to default on 
rationality.

Stan   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20070403/2f81fad3/attachment.html