(October 29, 2010 at 5:34 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I'm not making an argument because no argument is required.
I stated my position, and you disagreed with it... hence arguing.
Quote:The question is like asking "Why is a rock a rock and not something else?" We define ourselves as necessarily not someone else and someone else as necessarily not ourselves.
You seem to be awfully bold in making that claim... you and 'I' could be the universe attempting to know itself, and therefore you and I are both me, the universe. Why do I have to share a complete connectedness with myself to be me?
While you ponder that... consider the impossibility of yours not being a position of faith.
Quote:This is a matter of definition not argument. We are ourselves for the same reason a rock is a rock, because it by definition is what it is.
All definitions are arguable (as can be demonstrated when philosophy is discussed). A rock is also a vitamin tablet for giants, a hiding place for snakes in a desert, a big empty space for the neutrino, and a gateway to another dimension of the creator(s). We all define things individually. What do you see in the smeared ink... and is it what I see... and what a dog sees... and what a god sees? Not likely... but then I could be wrong. I actively think I am not wrong, and fully admit my faith in the position. Do you not?
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
