Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> I&apos;m not going to quote your comments. I went back and looked at the entire essay. There are quotes that fit both sides of our issues. The essay reads like Nagel&apos;s Mind and Cosmos. Nagel doesn&apos;t understand where consciousness came from and wants a &apos;third way&apos; theory so as not to have to espouse Theism. Talbott&apos;s essay is the same sort of philosophic ruminating. He starts with Dawkins and Dennett and poo-poos both of them for a form of mechanistic reductionism that doesn&apos;t define what we see in life. In so doing he raised many points that fit my thinking and many points that fit your thinking. Both he an Nagel walk a thought tightrope so as not to fall on either side of the debate. They both remind me of your thinking. To me it is cut and dried that there must be a God. I see only chance or design, as alternatives. I see only design as possible. It is interesting that I found Talbott through the Uncommon Descent website, which is the main ID website. They have reacted like I have. I can see why.