[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That was his easy out. But for some reason he didn't take it.


[/ QUOTE ]

In one of my posts I said this:

[ QUOTE ]

It's circular because it's definitional. It's not a syllogism. Purpose, reason, will are all inherent parts of mind and can't exist without mind


[/ QUOTE ]

Tim didn't respond but went on about syllogisms.

I've never had formal training in logic or read a book on it. I can't comprehend how someone can think there's no mind behind the universe but that the universe isn't irrational.

Many very smart philosophers make this connection. I've never seen them try to put it into a syllogism. It's virtually self-evident.

I think any syllogism I made would contain one or more premises that Tim would attack. So what's the point? He thinks a universe with no mind behind it can have purpose and be rational. That is the question, any premise would have to have something like that included or implied.

I also posted a thread using his analogy, cold, snow, etc., to which he didn't respond. Snow can't exist without cold. I'm saying snow is to purpose as cold is to mind. Snow requires cold, purpose requires mind. Purpose can't exist without mind. It's definitional. If he defines purpose in a way that it can exist without mind then we are disagreeing on basic assumptions, whether or not I made a formal, logical presentation.