>>280

>The beauty of all you bold anonymous posters is that you can duck my questions and say "well that wasn't me you asked."

And why would that matter? You are trying to argue against arguments, not against people, right? Also, the burden of proof is upon you, since you are trying to proove somthing, while people arguing against you are trying to disprove you. People who are not trying to prove someone wrong can ignore arguments and just try a new approach, one succesful approach is enough. People who are trying to prove that their argumentation is correct can not, since they have to show that each and every argument, even possible argument, is invalid.

Anyways...

Ok. You don't understand, that's rather sad but oh well. I'll make it clearer for you, if that is even possible.
I belive in what >>273 said, I was just converted. This means:

• If you can use logic, and if you can use universal, invariant and abstract laws and an uniform nature, so can I.
• My worldview is exactly as valid as yours. If mine is invalid, so is yours.
• My worldview is contrary to yours.

Why would I be wrong while you would be right?