Quote

[ConservChrist]

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists' and astronomer's as well as for everyone else. But if their thoughts - i.e. of materialism and astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents."
C.S. Lewis

[Revinius]

There is the heart of relativism. A relativist would agree with pretty much all of what he is saying and then ask you what the issue is?

[Athanasius]

I think they would answer with: "An accident presupposes intention, there was no intention, hence it was no accident". Mind you, that's a bit of sophism... But how would we respond to that?

[Revinius]

Haha, 'accident presupposes intention', what a crock. Sophism to the core indeed. I would respond that the attack on language rather than the issue at hand is a non-realist straw man that is specifically designed to be a barrier to a discussion on the truth of the matter with the ultimate view to denying truth (because truth is relative, the ignorant peoples that disagree that it is should be kept busy and away from their 'intolerant' damage to other's lives).