(January 9, 2013 at 7:24 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: depth = more than no information about them, besides the empirical, non version in your example
I'm still not sure what you're saying. Can you illustrate exactly how in my example I provided no "depth"? And can you explain how having no "depth" reduces to the imaginary? And what do you mean exactly by "imaginary" in this context?
Quote:I didn't tell you to look anything up in a dictionary. My sarcasm meter is broken. I apologise.
Umm...
"The dictionary reference floored your accusation of fallacy."
"The OED is an example."
"Except I am not pointing to any authority as empirical proof of existence. Merely of accepted definition. "
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).