After taking the time to demonstrate a Catholic apologist constructed a whole line of argumentation from a Leibniz text he can't read because its written in a language he doesn't know, the response I received back was as follows:
What can ya do, folks? We can only provide rational arguments and documentation. Whether a person will respond to solid logic and factuality is up to them.
If rational arguments are based on a bad foundation....well, however good the argumentation is does not matter. First build a solid foundation, then build from it. To imply I have not responded to "rational arguments and documentation" and "solid logic" when the premise is not proven is not "solid logic."
"I don't think Leibniz's context proves anything in favor of Swan's case; nor does it detract from ours."
One can "think" what he wants. He can "think" he has solid arguments based on material he can't read. Until he actually provides a sound basis by which to argue from, he has provided a lot of words and no substance. I see no reason to watch a discussion rapidly multiply in words on both his end and mine based on such a shoddy foundation. He says, "Not to blunt but this is sheer nonsense and I am in a hurry." Indeed, it is sheer nonsense, that two grown men have to dialog over speculations on a context neither can read. I'm sorry, my time is not worth such frivolity.
Posts
