User talk:Poujeaux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Poujeaux, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --ais523 13:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism page

I saw your edits, great job! Keep up the good work. Somerset219 05:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] atheism wikiproject

HI Poujeaux, I nabbed this nifty info box from the Digimon wikiproject, we could turn it into a good tool. Right now it has digimon stuff on it, but that can give us ideas, and help us out. Heres the template: [[1]]. If you could tell as many people as possible, that would be great. Perhaps we could replace the existing one at some point. Somerset219 08:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ipu is saved!

thanks for dropping me a line about it. If something like that happens again to any atheism related pages, just put a link to it and a little info on the to do list on the atheism wikiproject under your immediate attention. I'm trying to utilize that stupid thing. anyways, thanks again.Somerset219 08:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plantinga & publication

Poujeaux, I got around to looking at P's CV, and I think I see the confusion is coming from. There is indeed an unpublished paper entitled "Naturalism Defeated" (the pdf link we've got), but there's also a much earlier paper entitled, iirc, "An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" that was published in what I believe is a now-defunct philosophical journal entitled "Logos". I haven't a clue whether Logos was peer-reviewed or not, but I have to think the OUP-published Warrant & Proper Function was. Gabrielthursday 05:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, and for your support on the AfD page. I don't see it as partial. Gabrielthursday 17:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just for fun!

You said: "Looks like another example of wikipedia being too US-centred (note spelling!)"

But don't you know--the US and the UK are two cultures separated by a common language. :)

I also wanted to welcome you (a bit belatedly) to Wikipedia, and I hope you enjoy it here with the rest of us in our own little corner of Bedlam. Justin Eiler 18:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The God Delusion

Hi, Poujeaux. I just wanted to make sure you didn't read my replies in a 'biting your head off' manner. That was most definetly not intended. In any case, I think your change is still there. I am in no hurry changing it back, as none of the other editors seem to care strongly enough to comment or revert themselves. Once the current debate cools down, there will probably be a chance to discuss it with the others. Best wishes, EthicsGradient 13:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ethics, no problems mate. I think it unlikely that the debate will cool down - it's always going to be a hot topic!
Yeah, I suppose so. Dawkins took off his kid's gloves at a mature age. After many years of patience, he has most definetly earned that right. Not that he needs my approval. Happy editing! EthicsGradient 11:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Poujeaux. I agree that the problem of evil [p(Evil|No God)>>p(Evil|God)] is a very real one. The Freewill Defence and the Free Process Defence are in my view both valid, but pretty necessary. However altough this has something to do with p(No God) it has nothing to do with the validity of the "747 gambit" Even if you agree with the conclusion that p(No God) is very high, I genunely can't see how you, or Dawkins, or anyone else, can formalise the "747 gambit" in a way that makes logical sense. Can you help me in this? NBeale 20:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I havent read the book yet (have you?) so no I can't help you. It is not very clear on the page. Saying that natural selection can easily produce complicated things is fine and true, but doesnt disprove the existence of god as far as I can see. Poujeaux 18:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/u/User_talk%7EPoujeaux_44f4.html"