Comments on: Ryft on “The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God” http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/ryft-on-the-transcendental-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/ Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:14:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: MitchLeBlanc http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/ryft-on-the-transcendental-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/comment-page-1/#comment-659 MitchLeBlanc Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:46:56 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=768#comment-659 Sorry Dawson, I did not see this comment until today! I hope you had a good holiday season. From what I understand, Ryft's response was only Part 1, so I am assuming there are more parts forthcoming. Sorry Dawson, I did not see this comment until today! I hope you had a good holiday season.

From what I understand, Ryft's response was only Part 1, so I am assuming there are more parts forthcoming.

]]> By: MitchLeBlanc http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/ryft-on-the-transcendental-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/comment-page-1/#comment-9960 MitchLeBlanc Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:46:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=768#comment-9960 Sorry Dawson, I did not see this comment until today! I hope you had a good holiday season. From what I understand, Ryft's response was only Part 1, so I am assuming there are more parts forthcoming. Sorry Dawson, I did not see this comment until today! I hope you had a good holiday season.

From what I understand, Ryft's response was only Part 1, so I am assuming there are more parts forthcoming.

]]> By: Dawson Bethrick http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/ryft-on-the-transcendental-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/comment-page-1/#comment-300 Dawson Bethrick Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:34:59 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=768#comment-300 Very nice response, Mitch. It's not uncommon for presuppositionalist's objections to be answered in the papers they're critiquing in the first place - it's very often the case that they miss things that are right there before their eyes. Very nice response, Mitch. It's not uncommon for presuppositionalist's objections to be answered in the papers they're critiquing in the first place – it's very often the case that they miss things that are right there before their eyes.

]]> By: Dawson Bethrick http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/ryft-on-the-transcendental-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/comment-page-1/#comment-9959 Dawson Bethrick Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:34:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=768#comment-9959 Very nice response, Mitch. It's not uncommon for presuppositionalist's objections to be answered in the papers they're critiquing in the first place - it's very often the case that they miss things that are right there before their eyes. Very nice response, Mitch. It's not uncommon for presuppositionalist's objections to be answered in the papers they're critiquing in the first place – it's very often the case that they miss things that are right there before their eyes.

]]> By: MitchLeBlanc http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/ryft-on-the-transcendental-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/comment-page-1/#comment-287 MitchLeBlanc Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:08:48 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=768#comment-287 Hi Chris, there's no need for an apology. I am indeed referring to the Principle of Explosion. Hi Chris, there's no need for an apology. I am indeed referring to the Principle of Explosion.

]]> By: MitchLeBlanc http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/ryft-on-the-transcendental-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/comment-page-1/#comment-9958 MitchLeBlanc Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:08:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=768#comment-9958 Hi Chris, there's no need for an apology. I am indeed referring to the Principle of Explosion. Hi Chris, there's no need for an apology. I am indeed referring to the Principle of Explosion.

]]> By: C.L. Bolt http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/ryft-on-the-transcendental-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/comment-page-1/#comment-280 C.L. Bolt Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:42:39 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=768#comment-280 Are you referring to the Principle of Explosion in The Asymmetric Relationship section? I apologize that I have forgotten what you were getting at there, but it may be good to just explicitly state such if it is the case anyway. Are you referring to the Principle of Explosion in The Asymmetric Relationship section? I apologize that I have forgotten what you were getting at there, but it may be good to just explicitly state such if it is the case anyway.

]]> By: C.L. Bolt http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/ryft-on-the-transcendental-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/comment-page-1/#comment-9957 C.L. Bolt Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:42:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=768#comment-9957 Are you referring to the Principle of Explosion in The Asymmetric Relationship section? I apologize that I have forgotten what you were getting at there, but it may be good to just explicitly state such if it is the case anyway. Are you referring to the Principle of Explosion in The Asymmetric Relationship section? I apologize that I have forgotten what you were getting at there, but it may be good to just explicitly state such if it is the case anyway.

]]>