[MD] Dualism and Eagleton's God Delusion

[david buchanan]

David M said to DMB
By the way, you have my respect whether you stick with your own view or, 
even more impressively,
change your mind. If you have good reason to stick please make your case for 
your view or why you think mine is flawed. All down to where you want to 
draw the line real/non-real. I say it's all real, but what sort of real: 
static real, dynamic real, actual real, potential real, inner real, outer 
real, emerging real, repeating pattern real.

dmb says:
Yea, thanks Dave. Despite what you said, my disagreement here or anywhere 
else is not predicated on my dislike of you. You seem like a perfectly 
decent guy. But that doesn't keep me from thinking that your assertions 
about "the possible" are wrong. We apparently do agree that its all about 
what counts as real. That's my whole point. And your list of the different 
kinds of real is okay except for that same point of contention. Here you've 
used "potential real" instead of "the possible". But my objection is exactly 
the same. We can image the potential and that imagining is real. Both of 
these words refer to reality only insofar as they refer to the actual, 
present thoughts the future and not the future itself or the cause of its 
unfolding. In that sense, potential realities and possible realities are 
never real because if they are real then we can no longer rightly call them 
possible or potential. Then we'd say they were actualities and realizations. 
I explained this at greater length and posted it earlier today

_________________________________________________________________
Play Flexicon: the crossword game that feeds your brain. PLAY now for FREE.  
  http://zone.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmtagline