(November 7, 2011 at 3:19 am)fr0d0 Wrote: So only words that refer to actual phisical objects are real words. The rest don't count. I see
Whether a word refers to phisical (sic) objects or not, until some workable definition is presented and agreed upon there can be no meaningful dialogue. Actually, I would argue that it's much more important to define a word that doesn't have a real-world reference than one which does. The word "car" acts as a shorthand for all aspects of engine-driven wheeled passenger transport road vehicles with seating for up to eight people; no other context is required to convey that basic information - though we may argue about the relative performance of different makes and models, the environmental impact of the internal combustion engine, or whether electric motors are the way forward etc. The word "god" is shorthand for nothing and imparts zero information. Swapping one empty word for another similarly empty word is a pointless exercise. We could ask fifty people what the word god means to them, and I guarantee there will be many more differences than similarities. I might picture a god as a big beardy bloke in the sky, but do you? If you want to play Twenty Questions just say so.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
