(September 3, 2015 at 2:17 am)robvalue Wrote: Like God, it's something that has never been positively identified as existing at all, so if people want to make claims about it it's up to them to define it properly prior to their claim. I don't much care what definition they use, I'll kick the crap out of the claim regardless for the inevitable logical fallacies. And again like God, the people who argue for its existence I suspect don't really know what they are even describing.
Any definition which includes our current inability to explain it is stupid; just call it unexplained and stop trying to smuggle in extra mystery points. Similarly, saying it "breaks the laws of nature" is stupid because we have no definitive list of what the laws of nature are. It would just an unexplained apparent problem with our model of the laws.
Nature doesn't mean "Stuff we understand". Or if it does, that's a stupid definition.
So you're an isupernaturalist?
Sum ergo sum
