[donh]

When based on these things, a very well thought, reasoned, and rational argument can be made for their existence.

The site in question appears to be an objectivist site. It makes unwarranted assumptions about the tangible existence and ubiquitous power of axiomatic ideas in formal logic.

While it is possible that entities for which no certain objective evidence of any great power exist, I think you oversell the extent to which reasoning and rationality support their existence. Reasoning that only works while preaching to the choir, isn't the sort of reasoning science is organized to address.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

(isn't the sort of reasoning science is organized to address.)

I don't know about it only working while preaching to the chior. If someone is open minded, I think they they may be able to see the point being made. I do agree with your statement above, though. It is incompatible with the epistemology of science.

Can you recommend any other good philosophy sites? I find this stuff interesting.

One of the conflicts that arise in these threads is that some are trying to debate science with philosophy, and they don't realize it. Then they wonder why they can't make a valid argument. For example, ID is a philosophy. If someone wishes to debate it's validity, or not, science is the wrong arena.