(March 24, 2013 at 2:25 am)jstrodel Wrote: I am not arguing that a testimony is sufficient evidence to prove spiritual experience was genuine, that would be difficult to do. But a testimony is evidence.


Now produce evidence that miracles are incompatible with logic.

Miracle:
n.
an event that is contrary to the established laws of nature and attributed to a supernatural cause

The very definition is both self-contradicitng and immediately saddled with an extraordinary burden of proof to meet.

Argument from authority - you are blind if you think that exposing the "contradictions" in the way someone defines a miracle is a real philosophical argument.

You are defining a miracle in terms of the "laws of nature". That is such an amateurish, culturally biased approach to understanding miracles that presupposes so much metaphysics. You are seriously begging the question, as well as arguing from a very dubious authority.

(March 24, 2013 at 2:49 am)jstrodel Wrote: Argument from authority - you are blind if you think that exposing the "contradictions" in the way someone defines a miracle is a real philosophical argument.

You apparently wouldn't know an argument from authority if it bit you on the ass.

P.S. This isn't one.

(March 24, 2013 at 2:49 am)jstrodel Wrote: Argument from authority - you are blind if you think that exposing the "contradictions" in the way someone defines a miracle is a real philosophical argument.

Are you legitimately retarded?

(March 24, 2013 at 2:51 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(March 24, 2013 at 2:49 am)jstrodel Wrote: Argument from authority - you are blind if you think that exposing the "contradictions" in the way someone defines a miracle is a real philosophical argument.

You apparently wouldn't know an argument from authority if it bit you on the ass.

P.S. This isn't one.

How isn't it? He is arguing from the authority of a dictionary definition. Why should anyone accept that definition of a miracle?

---

(March 24, 2013 at 2:51 am)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:

(March 24, 2013 at 2:49 am)jstrodel Wrote: Argument from authority - you are blind if you think that exposing the "contradictions" in the way someone defines a miracle is a real philosophical argument.

Are you legitimately retarded?

Are you going to argue that or just accuse me?

(March 24, 2013 at 2:52 am)jstrodel Wrote: He is arguing from the authority of a dictionary definition.

By that very logic, you shouldn't be here at all typing anything. Everything you type is found in the dictionary you have just argued as a fallacy.

Only people with exceptionally small minds think that dictionary definitions prove things.

(March 24, 2013 at 2:52 am)jstrodel Wrote:

(March 24, 2013 at 2:51 am)Tartarus Sauce Wrote: Are you legitimately retarded?

Are you going to argue that or just accuse me?

I'm not accusing you, I'm asking an honest question.

"Only people with exceptionally small minds think that dictionary definitions prove things"

Bucko, the whole reason miracles are refuted is because they fit that very definition. Present me with a miracle that can't be described by the definition I prescribed for you.

(March 24, 2013 at 2:52 am)jstrodel Wrote:

(March 24, 2013 at 2:51 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You apparently wouldn't know an argument from authority if it bit you on the ass.

P.S. This isn't one.

How isn't it? He is arguing from the authority of a dictionary definition. Why should anyone accept that definition of a miracle?

Because, asshole, dictionary definitions are derived from common usage, not derived from authority.

If you'd like to argue that the correct usage of "miracle" is something other than the common usage, then frankly, you've got a long fucking row to hoe - and the ball is firmly within your fucking court. Perhaps you should ask your college about that when you're asking for a refund for the deficient education they provided you?

Furthermore, if you're going to argue that dictionary definitions aren't somehow correct, then you're going to have to admit that communication is fucking impossible, because absent common definitions, words mean precisely nothing.

This is precisely why I cut of our prior debate when you attempted to redefine "atheism" to mean something other than what it means.

By all means, continue to do so. We'll keep pointing and laughing.

(March 24, 2013 at 2:53 am)Mr Infidel Wrote:

(March 24, 2013 at 2:52 am)jstrodel Wrote: He is arguing from the authority of a dictionary definition.

By that very logic, you shouldn't be here at all typing anything. Everything you type is found in the dictionary you have just argued as a fallacy.

No, you don't know what you are talking about. Words are self evident symbols. Yes, it is true, when you use a word that has a negative connotation to it that describes something, when you apply the word where it has a negative connotation, you are invoking the authority of the word.

For instance, if you said "that is censorship!" with the statement intending to confer blame on the description, you are arguing from the authority of the badness of censorship which is not self evident that it is wrong.

The thing is, in ordinary language, you do not necessarily prove everything that you write. You argue from common sense subjects that have varying weights attached to them.

When you come to a philosophical proof of something, such as disproving miracles, you don't typically rely on ordinary language definitions of miracles, especially overtly hostile definitions.

To argue for something, you go from self evident truths to conclusions. It is not self evident that ordinary language words that are linked to culturally blameworthy categories are wrong. It is also not self evident that the metaphysics implicit in the dictionary definition should be accepted, or that the concept of a miracle has any relationship to what was posted.

The way that you define a term has a lot to do with its evidential status. People that are serious about learning about the world will learn about the deceptive nature of language and will try and free themselves from phoney ideas and cheap tricks and seek to penetrate beyond the symbols of words and into what the words signify, which is the external world the words represent.

The dictionary proof does nothing of this.