(January 8, 2013 at 1:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(January 8, 2013 at 12:21 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Just because 'x' is commonly defined as 'y' it does not follow that we should accept that 'x' be defined as 'y.'
Very good. We agree. Did we ever disagree on this? No.
Then stop committing the fallacy!
Please sir, explain why we should accept that angels et al (the 'x') be defined as non-empirical (the 'y').
Quote:The historicity is important. Personally I defer to those more knowledgeable than myself.
Well, at least you hold evidence to be relevant. I had my doubts. So what was the evidence if any that convinced you angels et all exist? If you don't need evidence, what was the thought process?
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
