>:-) Oh, come on David, you aren't dense...you're stubborn. I wasn't
>criticizing your intellect.
You're right about me being stubborn. I think I'm having a memetic
allergic reaction to <faith>.
>Given that we have invested intentionallity in all kinds of complex
>phenomena (volcanoes, hurricanes, the stars, the internet) more or less
>incorrectly...what would you propose we use at the "good evidence" for
>making the intentional assumption? Doesn't that evaluation criteria become
>an axiomatic system which will eventually be demonstrated inconsistent or
>incomplete.
>
>Like I said, you can bury it IN AS MANY LAYERS of philosophical and
>scientistic double talk as you like. Good evidence makes the assumption of
>the intentional stance reasonable. What defines "good evidence" and how do
>we veryify THAT axiomatic system...Ad infinitum. At the core is still a
>leap.
I think I see where you are coming from now. Would you say that making
a provisional assumption, even just long enough to test whether it is
true, even if you don't really believe the assumption, is a leap of
faith in your view?
>>>Perhaps. What is inconsistent about a belief in God?
>>
>>Which God? Brodie's? The Christians'?
>
>Either, both.
If you would care to ascribe some properties to the Christian God I could
probably point out some inconsistencies between what the world would be
like if said God existed and what it is actually like.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/