At the end of the day, Civbert is left with no deductive proof that can "œrise to the level of knowledge," though Sean thinks otherwise. The reason this must be so is because the certainty of what is allegedly deduced would be based upon an axiom not subject to logical discourse. Consequently, all that would be allegedly known through deduction would sink to the level of something not logical.
Originally posted by Civbert
This is an honor!
I haven't read it yet, but I honored that he felt my arguments warranted some sort of response. Now I've gotten feedback from some of the best - Vincent Cheung, Aquascum, and now Sudduth. I've posted on his Yahoo list and the silence was sort of daunting.
Should I post any comments on the blog, or here? Maybe I need a new thread?