> > I should think it would be interesting to accept the > > first premise of the syllogism just for the sake of > > the discussion, and see where John takes it, how he > > gets from there to the conclusion. I've seen some > > incredibly complex, sophisticated ways to do that. > > Don't know if John is going to use any of them, but > > I'd love to find out... > > John: > It appears that Curtis, through the example he > presented, agreed to the first premise. But then > again, maybe not... > Of course, both Turq and Curtis agree with the first premise, that events have a cause. Because, it's the most practical and believable theory. They both, every day, experience how human excrement flows downstream, not up, because that's just the practical thing to infer, based on the evidence and our sensory experience.
Shit does not fall up into the sky, unless they have a really big fart, so don't fall for anyone's attempts to go metaphysical. A famous sage in China was once always looking up at the clouds, and one day he fell into a ditch and hurt himself really bad!
