tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479830240587990195.post1490149994431916191..comments2024-03-28T13:10:44.555-04:00Comments on Iliocentrism: A fool for all seasonsIlíonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479830240587990195.post-62238840525701751122015-06-12T14:08:49.632-04:002015-06-12T14:08:49.632-04:00Ilion,
"Equivocation" was the word I wa...Ilion,<br /><br />"Equivocation" was the word I was looking for. Thank you! I try and read your blog and will comment from time to time. Keep up the good work.<br /><br />Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15940563034797865033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479830240587990195.post-83492830953927558012015-06-08T18:07:36.303-04:002015-06-08T18:07:36.303-04:00Greg: "When he talks of "proof" vs....<b>Greg:</b> "<i>When he talks of "proof" vs. "good arguments" regarding the philosophical defense of God, he is largely engaging in useless semantics. Sure, by claiming that arguments for God can't compel rational assent he is signaling he only wishes to defend a lower burden, but analytically at some level the only supportable theistic arguments (and in fact the Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479830240587990195.post-89916077795941501822015-06-08T18:07:08.200-04:002015-06-08T18:07:08.200-04:00Greg, welcome to my little blog. And thank you fo...Greg, welcome to my little blog. And thank you for your comment.<br /><br /><b>Greg:</b> "<i>I wonder if he isn't saying this from a liberal perspective--i.e. a classical liberal would argue that we must tolerate both theists and atheists because neither proposition can be definitively known or proven. It appears muddled though; it does seem that he is defending this position as his ownIlíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479830240587990195.post-79994650270615361862015-06-08T12:29:34.349-04:002015-06-08T12:29:34.349-04:00I wonder if he isn't saying this from a libera...I wonder if he isn't saying this from a liberal perspective--i.e. a classical liberal would argue that we must tolerate both theists and atheists because neither proposition can be definitively known or proven. It appears muddled though; it does seem that he is defending this position as his own at times. If so, is he self-identifying as liberal? How can God condemn people for unbelief if we Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15940563034797865033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479830240587990195.post-34549949586580824682015-06-08T12:24:29.464-04:002015-06-08T12:24:29.464-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15940563034797865033noreply@blogger.com