Current academic stances on materialism

[3017Metaphysician]

Sure! Evolution implies emergence. Hence, you must demonstrate how the information narrative emerges from that matter narrative. Otherwise, who is, in your words, "throwing together endlessly" the ingredients? Please share your theory if you have one!

Do you imagine matter does not embody information? Have you ever looked at a snowflake? The fractal geometry and symmetry - not dissimilar to crystals, or other atomic structures of matter, is information. Information is a quality of matter. I'll accept a distinction between animate and inanimate; and a need to explain how that occurs, but information and matter are not a dichotomy. Who sold you that pup? Aristotle?
Haven't we moved on from an earth, wind, fire and water conception of matter?

You realise the cake recipe was a metaphor, and I was responding in terms of that metaphor, right? There isn't anyone on a primordial earth stirring the primordial soup. There's just hot, cold, lightning, wind, solar radiation, gravitation, acting on chemical elements over unimaginable amounts of time - until a cake happens. The cake, in this sense being an RNA molecule - chemical elements arranged in such a way they are able to divide lengthwise, attract their chemical oppsitwe from the environment and so reproduce. These then joined together to form DNA, that produces proteins, that form a cell, that then incorporates mitochondria, ingests chemical and solar energy, excretes oxygen as a waste product, poisons its environment and almost dies out, but a few survive, and they reproduce, join together, form multicellular lifeforms - and boom, a billion years later, you!

Thank you, lot's to unpack, but the obvious problem in your response are threefold.

1. Information attached to physical matter, like snowflakes, doesn't explain the nature of human existence. There is one set of laws that govern physical matter and another set of laws that govern biological life forms. Are you trying to argue that both of them are the same? And who produces physical theories about matter anyway? A mind?

2. Mind is here, material stuff is here. That's all the ingredients you need right,? The metaphor is indeed germane. So give us a formula that tells us what, where, when and how matter came into existence, creates self-organized biological life forms to emerge from matter and most importantly, why there is something and not nothing. Bake the cake now. You know, like a ToE.

3. And with respect to all the relationships between mind and matter, does a human mind require one to posit a theory in the first place? If it does, do physical neurons tell us we need to produce theories about stuff, or do we tell neurons to produce theories about stuff? How do neurons know that we have needs to theorize about stuff? And why don't neurons (trees and all other material objects) talk and have an intellect? Is that a dichotomy? Absurd?

Remember, Materialism attempts to explain all of existence and/or everything in terms of material events.

No, no - the obvious problem is that you cannot explain anything. Your solipsistic subject cannot rely on the senses, or be certain that the objective world exists. You cannot put one foot in front of the other, certain that you will not fall into the abyss with every step. And that's if you really have feet! You don't know! You know you exist; you think, and therefore you exist - but that's it. Everything else can be doubted away.

Relative to you, and for the sake of a very reasonable assumption that what I perceive exists, I can know things - not everything; but not nothing either. That's why I'm here. Not to provide a material explanation of the universe and everything in it; but to defend an epistemological approach to knowledge that is significant to human survival.

Your argument is patently dishonest. If it weren't for science how could you know about neurons, or anything else? You steal fruit from my orchard to pelt me with. You cannot seriously believe your position is valid - because you are not that stupid, so what are you? Why kick science in the balls on a daily basis - when surely you must realise that it's humankind's best hope of a future. I mean, look around at all the sciency stuff that works - not least the computer in front of you. But no; you won't acknowledge science is valid knowledge until science explains everything, and you mean everything plus why! Why not nothing? You cannot be serious.

I don't know what that means, what are you trying to argue? I've read your response several times but am not sure what issue you're addressing out of those three I mentioned. Please share your theory (of everything) if you are able! Remember, the general meaning of Materialism is that it attempts to explain all of existence and/or everything, in terms of 'exclusive' material events.

Maybe try to argue for some variation or sub-category of materialism to make your case... .

Thanks!

[Mercury]

Sure! Evolution implies emergence. Hence, you must demonstrate how the information narrative emerges from that matter narrative. Otherwise, who is, in your words, "throwing together endlessly" the ingredients? Please share your theory if you have one!

Do you imagine matter does not embody information? Have you ever looked at a snowflake? The fractal geometry and symmetry - not dissimilar to crystals, or other atomic structures of matter, is information. Information is a quality of matter. I'll accept a distinction between animate and inanimate; and a need to explain how that occurs, but information and matter are not a dichotomy. Who sold you that pup? Aristotle?
Haven't we moved on from an earth, wind, fire and water conception of matter?

You realise the cake recipe was a metaphor, and I was responding in terms of that metaphor, right? There isn't anyone on a primordial earth stirring the primordial soup. There's just hot, cold, lightning, wind, solar radiation, gravitation, acting on chemical elements over unimaginable amounts of time - until a cake happens. The cake, in this sense being an RNA molecule - chemical elements arranged in such a way they are able to divide lengthwise, attract their chemical oppsitwe from the environment and so reproduce. These then joined together to form DNA, that produces proteins, that form a cell, that then incorporates mitochondria, ingests chemical and solar energy, excretes oxygen as a waste product, poisons its environment and almost dies out, but a few survive, and they reproduce, join together, form multicellular lifeforms - and boom, a billion years later, you!

Thank you, lot's to unpack, but the obvious problem in your response are threefold.

1. Information attached to physical matter, like snowflakes, doesn't explain the nature of human existence. There is one set of laws that govern physical matter and another set of laws that govern biological life forms. Are you trying to argue that both of them are the same? And who produces physical theories about matter anyway? A mind?

2. Mind is here, material stuff is here. That's all the ingredients you need right,? The metaphor is indeed germane. So give us a formula that tells us what, where, when and how matter came into existence, creates self-organized biological life forms to emerge from matter and most importantly, why there is something and not nothing. Bake the cake now. You know, like a ToE.

3. And with respect to all the relationships between mind and matter, does a human mind require one to posit a theory in the first place? If it does, do physical neurons tell us we need to produce theories about stuff, or do we tell neurons to produce theories about stuff? How do neurons know that we have needs to theorize about stuff? And why don't neurons (trees and all other material objects) talk and have an intellect? Is that a dichotomy? Absurd?

Remember, Materialism attempts to explain all of existence and/or everything in terms of material events.

No, no - the obvious problem is that you cannot explain anything. Your solipsistic subject cannot rely on the senses, or be certain that the objective world exists. You cannot put one foot in front of the other, certain that you will not fall into the abyss with every step. And that's if you really have feet! You don't know! You know you exist; you think, and therefore you exist - but that's it. Everything else can be doubted away.

Relative to you, and for the sake of a very reasonable assumption that what I perceive exists, I can know things - not everything; but not nothing either. That's why I'm here. Not to provide a material explanation of the universe and everything in it; but to defend an epistemological approach to knowledge that is significant to human survival.

Your argument is patently dishonest. If it weren't for science how could you know about neurons, or anything else? You steal fruit from my orchard to pelt me with. You cannot seriously believe your position is valid - because you are not that stupid, so what are you? Why kick science in the balls on a daily basis - when surely you must realise that it's humankind's best hope of a future. I mean, look around at all the sciency stuff that works - not least the computer in front of you. But no; you won't acknowledge science is valid knowledge until science explains everything, and you mean everything plus why! Why not nothing? You cannot be serious.

I don't know what that means, what are you trying to argue? I've read your response several times but am not sure what issue you're addressing out of those three I mentioned. Please share your theory (of everything) if you are able! Remember, the general meaning of Materialism is that it attempts to explain all of existence and/or everything, in terms of 'exclusive' material events.

Maybe try to argue for some variation or sub-category of materialism to make your case... .

Thanks!

None of them. I'm not addressing your three demands because they're insane. That's not materialism, objectivity or science. It's a backhanded defense of subjectivism. You do not impose similar methodological or epistemic barriers to subjectivism. You can imagine a demon is deceiving you and doubt away apparent reality and the evidence of the senses without any requirement to prove any of this.

But if science makes disciplined and modest claims you demand science explain life, the universe and everything - or none of it is true. That's the purpose of materialsm. To make the argument that - if science doesn't explain everything, it doesn't explain anything. It's the mind body problem you see with regard to sensory perception, or it's propositional logical and the semantic structure of language as it relates to reality, that makes meaning just impossible! Oh really?

I want to know why you are making these dishonest arguments. I do not believe you believe them - and yet you spend inordinate amounts of energy on them. Why?

Do you accept that since Galileo's trial for heresy, that Westerm philosophy has lent heavily into Cartesian subjectivism - and the consequence of this is to deny science the authority it rightfully owns as truth? Do you know that, and understand that without regard for science, we have applied all the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons - and are barelling toward extinction? Government and industry use science for power and profit, but without any responsibility to a scientific understanding of reality because philosophy denies science as truth. Descartes did not have the courage to back Galileo against the Church - and philosophy now does not support scientific epistemology over the radical scepticism of subjectivist quackery.

Are you aware of that, but quack anyway? Or are not aware of it, and have been bamboozled by quacks? I think it's the former. I think it's deliberate. And thus I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty.

[3017Metaphysician]

Sure! Evolution implies emergence. Hence, you must demonstrate how the information narrative emerges from that matter narrative. Otherwise, who is, in your words, "throwing together endlessly" the ingredients? Please share your theory if you have one!

Do you imagine matter does not embody information? Have you ever looked at a snowflake? The fractal geometry and symmetry - not dissimilar to crystals, or other atomic structures of matter, is information. Information is a quality of matter. I'll accept a distinction between animate and inanimate; and a need to explain how that occurs, but information and matter are not a dichotomy. Who sold you that pup? Aristotle?
Haven't we moved on from an earth, wind, fire and water conception of matter?

You realise the cake recipe was a metaphor, and I was responding in terms of that metaphor, right? There isn't anyone on a primordial earth stirring the primordial soup. There's just hot, cold, lightning, wind, solar radiation, gravitation, acting on chemical elements over unimaginable amounts of time - until a cake happens. The cake, in this sense being an RNA molecule - chemical elements arranged in such a way they are able to divide lengthwise, attract their chemical oppsitwe from the environment and so reproduce. These then joined together to form DNA, that produces proteins, that form a cell, that then incorporates mitochondria, ingests chemical and solar energy, excretes oxygen as a waste product, poisons its environment and almost dies out, but a few survive, and they reproduce, join together, form multicellular lifeforms - and boom, a billion years later, you!

Thank you, lot's to unpack, but the obvious problem in your response are threefold.

1. Information attached to physical matter, like snowflakes, doesn't explain the nature of human existence. There is one set of laws that govern physical matter and another set of laws that govern biological life forms. Are you trying to argue that both of them are the same? And who produces physical theories about matter anyway? A mind?

2. Mind is here, material stuff is here. That's all the ingredients you need right,? The metaphor is indeed germane. So give us a formula that tells us what, where, when and how matter came into existence, creates self-organized biological life forms to emerge from matter and most importantly, why there is something and not nothing. Bake the cake now. You know, like a ToE.

3. And with respect to all the relationships between mind and matter, does a human mind require one to posit a theory in the first place? If it does, do physical neurons tell us we need to produce theories about stuff, or do we tell neurons to produce theories about stuff? How do neurons know that we have needs to theorize about stuff? And why don't neurons (trees and all other material objects) talk and have an intellect? Is that a dichotomy? Absurd?

Remember, Materialism attempts to explain all of existence and/or everything in terms of material events.

No, no - the obvious problem is that you cannot explain anything. Your solipsistic subject cannot rely on the senses, or be certain that the objective world exists. You cannot put one foot in front of the other, certain that you will not fall into the abyss with every step. And that's if you really have feet! You don't know! You know you exist; you think, and therefore you exist - but that's it. Everything else can be doubted away.

Relative to you, and for the sake of a very reasonable assumption that what I perceive exists, I can know things - not everything; but not nothing either. That's why I'm here. Not to provide a material explanation of the universe and everything in it; but to defend an epistemological approach to knowledge that is significant to human survival.

Your argument is patently dishonest. If it weren't for science how could you know about neurons, or anything else? You steal fruit from my orchard to pelt me with. You cannot seriously believe your position is valid - because you are not that stupid, so what are you? Why kick science in the balls on a daily basis - when surely you must realise that it's humankind's best hope of a future. I mean, look around at all the sciency stuff that works - not least the computer in front of you. But no; you won't acknowledge science is valid knowledge until science explains everything, and you mean everything plus why! Why not nothing? You cannot be serious.

I don't know what that means, what are you trying to argue? I've read your response several times but am not sure what issue you're addressing out of those three I mentioned. Please share your theory (of everything) if you are able! Remember, the general meaning of Materialism is that it attempts to explain all of existence and/or everything, in terms of 'exclusive' material events.

Maybe try to argue for some variation or sub-category of materialism to make your case... .

Thanks!

None of them. I'm not addressing your three demands because they're insane. That's not materialism, objectivity or science. It's a backhanded defense of subjectivism. You do not impose similar methodological or epistemic barriers to subjectivism. You can imagine a demon is deceiving you and doubt away apparent reality and the evidence of the senses without any requirement to prove any of this.

But if science makes disciplined and modest claims you demand science explain life, the universe and everything - or none of it is true. That's the purpose of materialsm. To make the argument that - if science doesn't explain everything, it doesn't explain anything. It's the mind body problem you see with regard to sensory perception, or it's propositional logical and the semantic structure of language as it relates to reality, that makes meaning just impossible! Oh really?

I want to know why you are making these dishonest arguments. I do not believe you believe them - and yet you spend inordinate amounts of energy on them. Why?

Do you accept that since Galileo's trial for heresy, that Westerm philosophy has lent heavily into Cartesian subjectivism - and the consequence of this is to deny science the authority it rightfully owns as truth? Do you know that, and understand that without regard for science, we have applied all the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons - and are barelling toward extinction? Government and industry use science for power and profit, but without any responsibility to a scientific understanding of reality because philosophy denies science as truth. Descartes did not have the courage to back Galileo against the Church - and philosophy now does not support scientific epistemology over the radical scepticism of subjectivist quackery.

Are you aware of that, but quack anyway? Or are not aware of it, and have been bamboozled by quacks? I think it's the former. I think it's deliberate. And thus I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty.

Again, not sure why you can't engage in the debate. Those comments are not relevant. Remember, again, Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Maybe think about it for a bit, relative to causation, and come back with some cogent arguments? Physical stuff having causative powers, properties, or value, is the issue.

[Mercury]

Again, not sure why you can't engage in the debate. Those comments are not relevant. Remember, again, Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Maybe think about it for a bit, relative to causation, and come back with some cogent arguments? Physical stuff having causative powers, properties, or value, is the issue.

Do you engage in materialism because you accept a basically material explanation of reality, or because you don't?

[3017Metaphysician]

Again, not sure why you can't engage in the debate. Those comments are not relevant. Remember, again, Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Maybe think about it for a bit, relative to causation, and come back with some cogent arguments? Physical stuff having causative powers, properties, or value, is the issue.

Do you engage in materialism because you accept a basically material explanation of reality, or because you don't?

I accept materialism as a one-sided, incomplete explanation of reality. It's only a half-theory. Think of it like subject-object, or any other opposing feature of existence (hot/cold, happy/sad, conscious/subconscious, mind/body, temporal time/eternal time, rain/sunshine, physical laws/biological laws, physics/metaphysics, ad nauseam) or any situation in which the existence or identity of a thing (or perception of reality) depends on the co-existence of at least two conditions, which are opposite to each other, yet dependent on each other. Or in dialectics, where one always argues from a position of opposite's (yes/no) or opposing truth values (antinomy).

Consider the apperceptions of reality and what that means and its implications. For instance, which makes more sense, subject-object or object-object? With few exceptions, we should not renounce opposite's; only integrate them. Afterall, isn't that what a ToE tries to do?

That'll be 35 cents please

[Mercury]

Again, not sure why you can't engage in the debate. Those comments are not relevant. Remember, again, Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Maybe think about it for a bit, relative to causation, and come back with some cogent arguments? Physical stuff having causative powers, properties, or value, is the issue.

Do you engage in materialism because you accept a basically material explanation of reality, or because you don't?

I accept materialism as a one-sided, incomplete explanation of reality. It's only a half-theory. Think of it like subject-object, or any other opposing feature of existence (hot/cold, happy/sad, conscious/subconscious, mind/body, temporal time/eternal time, rain/sunshine, physical laws/biological laws, physics/metaphysics, ad nauseam) or any situation in which the existence or identity of a thing (or perception of reality) depends on the co-existence of at least two conditions, which are opposite to each other, yet dependent on each other. Or in dialectics, where one always argues from a position of opposite's (yes/no) or opposing truth values (antinomy).

Consider the apperceptions of reality and what that means and its implications. For instance, which makes more sense, subject-object or object-object? With few exceptions, we should not renounce opposite's; only integrate them. Afterall, isn't that what a ToE tries to do?

That'll be 35 cents please

So we are back to intellectual dishonesty then, because clearly subjectivism is located so as to deny any validity to material explanation. You most certainly are not addressing subject and object as two sides of the same coin, and you know that's not true. If it were true, you would recognise the limits subjective perception poses upon material explanation - (as science does at the methodological level) but instead you demand materialism explain life, the universe and everything!

"Remember, Materialism attempts to explain all of existence and/or everything in terms of material events."

A material explanation of reality is assumed by science (until proven otherwise) but it's not a reasonable expectation of what science is able to demonstrate. Yet you do not hesitate in demanding that it should, because materialism is a dishonest philosophy, a subjectivist misinterpretation of the underlying assumption in science. Materialism is not the product of those who assume a material explanation, but a subjectivist anti-philosophy designed to pose impossible questions and demonstrate science's inability to answer them.

[3017Metaphysician]

Again, not sure why you can't engage in the debate. Those comments are not relevant. Remember, again, Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Maybe think about it for a bit, relative to causation, and come back with some cogent arguments? Physical stuff having causative powers, properties, or value, is the issue.

Do you engage in materialism because you accept a basically material explanation of reality, or because you don't?

I accept materialism as a one-sided, incomplete explanation of reality. It's only a half-theory. Think of it like subject-object, or any other opposing feature of existence (hot/cold, happy/sad, conscious/subconscious, mind/body, temporal time/eternal time, rain/sunshine, physical laws/biological laws, physics/metaphysics, ad nauseam) or any situation in which the existence or identity of a thing (or perception of reality) depends on the co-existence of at least two conditions, which are opposite to each other, yet dependent on each other. Or in dialectics, where one always argues from a position of opposite's (yes/no) or opposing truth values (antinomy).

Consider the apperceptions of reality and what that means and its implications. For instance, which makes more sense, subject-object or object-object? With few exceptions, we should not renounce opposite's; only integrate them. Afterall, isn't that what a ToE tries to do?

That'll be 35 cents please

So we are back to intellectual dishonesty then, because clearly subjectivism is located so as to deny any validity to material explanation. You most certainly are not addressing subject and object as two sides of the same coin, and you know that's not true. If it were true, you would recognise the limits subjective perception poses upon material explanation - (as science does at the methodological level) but instead you demand materialism explain life, the universe and everything!

"Remember, Materialism attempts to explain all of existence and/or everything in terms of material events."

A material explanation of reality is assumed by science (until proven otherwise) but it's not a reasonable expectation of what science is able to demonstrate. Yet you do not hesitate in demanding that it should, because materialism is a dishonest philosophy, a subjectivist misinterpretation of the underlying assumption in science. Materialism is not the product of those who assume a material explanation, but a subjectivist anti-philosophy designed to pose impossible questions and demonstrate science's inability to answer them.

Not following you there. Let's slow it down a bit.

1. Are you saying subject-object is not logically necessary?

2. Why is Subjectivity a philosophical anti-philosophy?

3. What is 'science able to demonstrate' within the context of our discussion?

[Mercury]

Again, not sure why you can't engage in the debate. Those comments are not relevant. Remember, again, Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Maybe think about it for a bit, relative to causation, and come back with some cogent arguments? Physical stuff having causative powers, properties, or value, is the issue.

Do you engage in materialism because you accept a basically material explanation of reality, or because you don't?

I accept materialism as a one-sided, incomplete explanation of reality. It's only a half-theory. Think of it like subject-object, or any other opposing feature of existence (hot/cold, happy/sad, conscious/subconscious, mind/body, temporal time/eternal time, rain/sunshine, physical laws/biological laws, physics/metaphysics, ad nauseam) or any situation in which the existence or identity of a thing (or perception of reality) depends on the co-existence of at least two conditions, which are opposite to each other, yet dependent on each other. Or in dialectics, where one always argues from a position of opposite's (yes/no) or opposing truth values (antinomy).

Consider the apperceptions of reality and what that means and its implications. For instance, which makes more sense, subject-object or object-object? With few exceptions, we should not renounce opposite's; only integrate them. Afterall, isn't that what a ToE tries to do?

That'll be 35 cents please

So we are back to intellectual dishonesty then, because clearly subjectivism is located so as to deny any validity to material explanation. You most certainly are not addressing subject and object as two sides of the same coin, and you know that's not true. If it were true, you would recognise the limits subjective perception poses upon material explanation - (as science does at the methodological level) but instead you demand materialism explain life, the universe and everything!

"Remember, Materialism attempts to explain all of existence and/or everything in terms of material events."

A material explanation of reality is assumed by science (until proven otherwise) but it's not a reasonable expectation of what science is able to demonstrate. Yet you do not hesitate in demanding that it should, because materialism is a dishonest philosophy, a subjectivist misinterpretation of the underlying assumption in science. Materialism is not the product of those who assume a material explanation, but a subjectivist anti-philosophy designed to pose impossible questions and demonstrate science's inability to answer them.

Not following you there. Let's slow it down a bit.

1. Are you saying subject-object is not logically necessary?

2. Why is Subjectivity a philosophical anti-philosophy?

3. What is 'science able to demonstrate' within the context of our discussion?

1. For what purpose? I've never had to mention it outside contexts in which it is employed to deny the obvious. Want to convince someone black is white, or day is night, or left is up - subjectivism is your friend!

2. Materialism is a subjectivist anti-philosophy; a reductio ad absurdum of the underlying assumption in science.

3. It moves!

2.

[3017Metaphysician]

Again, not sure why you can't engage in the debate. Those comments are not relevant. Remember, again, Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Maybe think about it for a bit, relative to causation, and come back with some cogent arguments? Physical stuff having causative powers, properties, or value, is the issue.

Do you engage in materialism because you accept a basically material explanation of reality, or because you don't?

I accept materialism as a one-sided, incomplete explanation of reality. It's only a half-theory. Think of it like subject-object, or any other opposing feature of existence (hot/cold, happy/sad, conscious/subconscious, mind/body, temporal time/eternal time, rain/sunshine, physical laws/biological laws, physics/metaphysics, ad nauseam) or any situation in which the existence or identity of a thing (or perception of reality) depends on the co-existence of at least two conditions, which are opposite to each other, yet dependent on each other. Or in dialectics, where one always argues from a position of opposite's (yes/no) or opposing truth values (antinomy).

Consider the apperceptions of reality and what that means and its implications. For instance, which makes more sense, subject-object or object-object? With few exceptions, we should not renounce opposite's; only integrate them. Afterall, isn't that what a ToE tries to do?

That'll be 35 cents please

So we are back to intellectual dishonesty then, because clearly subjectivism is located so as to deny any validity to material explanation. You most certainly are not addressing subject and object as two sides of the same coin, and you know that's not true. If it were true, you would recognise the limits subjective perception poses upon material explanation - (as science does at the methodological level) but instead you demand materialism explain life, the universe and everything!

"Remember, Materialism attempts to explain all of existence and/or everything in terms of material events."

A material explanation of reality is assumed by science (until proven otherwise) but it's not a reasonable expectation of what science is able to demonstrate. Yet you do not hesitate in demanding that it should, because materialism is a dishonest philosophy, a subjectivist misinterpretation of the underlying assumption in science. Materialism is not the product of those who assume a material explanation, but a subjectivist anti-philosophy designed to pose impossible questions and demonstrate science's inability to answer them.

Not following you there. Let's slow it down a bit.

1. Are you saying subject-object is not logically necessary?

2. Why is Subjectivity a philosophical anti-philosophy?

3. What is 'science able to demonstrate' within the context of our discussion?

1. For what purpose? I've never had to mention it outside contexts in which it is employed to deny the obvious. Want to convince someone black is white, or day is night, or left is up - subjectivism is your friend!

2. Materialism is a subjectivist anti-philosophy; a reductio ad absurdum of the underlying assumption in science.

3. It moves!

2.

Let me know if you're still interested in a debate!

[Mercury]

Let me know if you're still interested in a debate!

Goodness me no, we did that. You lost. We're into the autopsy - and the crucial question is are you a liar or an idiot? I'm thinking liar! But you're not making it easy to tell.

[3017Metaphysician]

Let me know if you're still interested in a debate!

Goodness me no, we did that. You lost. We're into the autopsy - and the crucial question is are you a liar or an idiot? I'm thinking liar! But you're not making it easy to tell.

Let me know when you have an argument to support your case, I'll be happy to re-engage!