Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00157)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> For if Bart says it is POSSIBLE that the cup
> and saucer were deposited there thru a side
> tunnel, it is just as valid to say that
> it is POSSIBLE that the cup and saucer
> was not deposited there thru a side tunnel.

That argument makes no sense. Trickery is intrinsically more 
plausible than materialization, expesially if no one else seems to 
have ever materialized anything. It is threfore germane if one can 
argue that the cup and saucer demo was impossible to perform by 
trickery, since that makes trickery as an argument implausible and by 
default removes materialization to the position of the more plausible 
hypothesis. Bart's theory was first proposed by Henderson if I am 
not mistaken, and yet Henderson did not prove it even though he was 
there and should have had that opportnity. That makes it seem less 
likely to me that the theory is correct, but it is ingenious.