Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <47993a7b$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
>> andrel wrote:
>>> Darren New wrote:
>>>> Is there free will in Heaven?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (FWIW, I think either answer leads to some obvious problems. :-)
>>>>
>>> The question is based on a false assumption. Logic dictates that 
>>> everything follows from a false assumption so the answer is probably yes
>> Incidentally, if what you mean is "there is no Heaven", then the correct 
>> answer to the question is "Mu" - the Zen answer that unasks the 
>> question. :-)
>>
> "False" in this instance refers to lack of foundation.

Lack of foundation for what? It was a question.

> But, the assumption is false, being unfounded on fact, 

Which assumption?

> That there is no evidence, logical or otherwise, to propose that the 
> statement has any validity, 

Which statement? It's a question.

> doesn't help it being provably/testably true either, 
> never mind a valid premise, as above, to begin with.

Doesn't help what being testably true?

I fear on this one your ranting is taking off before anyone even says 
anything.  Of course the question assumes the existence of free will 
somewhere, and of heaven.  The point of the question is to investigate 
those assumptions, in case you hadn't noticed.  Just ranting without 
reference to the question isn't very interesting.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message