RE: Science and religion
March 24, 2013 at 3:09 am
(This post was last modified: March 24, 2013 at 3:11 am by jstrodel.)
No, they aren't interchangeable. Your whole argument before hinged on the dictionary definition being contradictory. That is because you defined the word in terms of supposed "laws of nature". A miracle is conflicting with the "laws of nature". Which laws of nature? Can you go down to the justice center in your local court and read the laws of nature? Obviously that presupposes the philosophy of the people who wrote the definition.
Do you have any critical thinking skills at all? I am not intending to insult you, but you are really doing a bad job. Can't you see the metaphysics implied in what you wrote and how different the two are? Are you blind? I am not trying to insult you, again, but seriously.
You could compress those into one line. It is not like there is any logic. It would be whitespace in C++.
Do you have any critical thinking skills at all? I am not intending to insult you, but you are really doing a bad job. Can't you see the metaphysics implied in what you wrote and how different the two are? Are you blind? I am not trying to insult you, again, but seriously.
(March 24, 2013 at 3:08 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(March 24, 2013 at 3:06 am)jstrodel Wrote: Words are self evident symbols.
1. A word is a symbol that represents something in the outside world
2. When someone reads a word, they recognize that the symbol signifies something
3. The meaning, what is signified, is self evident if it is understood correctly, the truth value of the word is not self evident
It is ok to appeal to a common understanding of the word word, because it is uncontroversial.
If it were self-evident, you wouldn't find it necessary to provide three bullet points to prove it.
Fail.
You could compress those into one line. It is not like there is any logic. It would be whitespace in C++.