(September 15, 2015 at 9:44 am)robvalue Wrote:(September 15, 2015 at 9:07 am)lkingpinl Wrote: Rob, I tend to see a recurring pattern with you referring to unanimous definitions. Do you believe truth to be relative?
I don't understand the first sentence, sorry. I like to agree on definitions of words before a debate rather than halfway through, sure. I find your definition of supernatural to be a very loaded way of saying unexplained. You seem to assume that unexplained phenomena are not natural until they are proved to be natural; that's an argument from ignorance.
"Breakdown of natural law" is talking about our current models failing, it doesn't mean there isn't any natural law explaining it. We describe nature, we don't prescribe it.
But for the purposes of this discussion, you can call unexplained supernatural, it makes no difference to me!
I don't really understand the question either, or what it's got to do with anything. Relative to what? But I'll say no, truth isn't relative.
What I mean to say here Rob is in a lot of our discussions you bring up defining something. Like in the mind vs matter thread you asked if we defined "exist". I'm just noticing you seem to think that all things are relative. I'm glad you don't think truth is relative, but I guess the more important question is, can truth be known?
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
