RE: Top Seven Ways Christianity is Debunked By the Sciences
September 29, 2011 at 6:22 am
(This post was last modified: September 29, 2011 at 6:28 am by Zaki Aminu.)
(September 28, 2011 at 5:45 pm)Pendragon Wrote: Zaki Aminu Wrote:
Quote:Are you saying that you think that Ultimate Reality is a fiction? Why?
If you're going to be disagreeing with the language then you have to be admit you're not interested in communicating. You can't then pretend that you're being logical.
Most people believe in reality, but don't need to add "supreme", to make it more real. Adding a "supreme being" into reality becomes unnecessary.
There is a hierachy in Existence. Some things are absolutely dependent for their existence on others. For instance, carbon molecules cannot exist unless carbon atoms exist first. That's my point. Some things necessarily precede others in Existence - and One precedes all others. That is the Supreme or Ultimate Reality - the understanding of Which is the ultimate goal of all science - all true searches for knowledge. Is this not so?
(September 28, 2011 at 5:51 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Hmn, doesn't look like you're going to take me up on that easter egg hunt. What you are doing is called "The Fallacy of Equivocation". The misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense. In this case, you actually created the meanings or sense when you edited a definition of an entry in a dictionary so that it would suit your argument. There's actually a name for that as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
So much for "ultimate reality".
Actually, I'm using only the standard - dictionary - definition of words. In fact, I insist on this as anything else would lead to confusion. I pointed to the definition (of which there was only one) of "God" - as distinct from "god". I left out examples to keep the definition as pristine as possible and my post as concise as possible. I'm really not sure what it is you're complaining about.
