(July 12, 2010 at 1:20 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Nice example EvF. The point is that with that you don't really reject any specific Easter Bunny at all. I'd say that you simply reject the soundness of the proposition on basis of lack of definition, coherence and meaning.It's still a definition that has some meaning, and I can still reject it based on lack of evidence. As I said above... if it's unverifiable so what? That doesn't mean it can't be defined as something unverifiable. Unverifiable doesn't mean undefinable. The fact its definition for the Easter Bunny is unverifiable and there therefore can't be any evidence to support it is why I reject and disbelieve it.
Quote: If you were told that there lives a guy called Easter Bunny you would have to re-evaluate your position.That would be a different definition.
Quote: You reject the soundness of the proposition, not the existence of any definition of Easter Bunny.
I reject the existence of the definition of the Easter bunny... the definition doesn't have to be perfectly clear... because no definition is - you can always add more detail.
EvF