(February 19, 2013 at 12:35 am)naimless Wrote:(February 19, 2013 at 12:08 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: As it should.
Yes but it is impossible. You never know how many definitions of words another person knows. For example, there is the assumption I understand what you understand "should" means. Then the intonation of the phrase is another issue. My reply, right now, is probably not teaching you anything new. It's just attempting to find common ground and reinforce similar definitions. But you knew that, too, and so on...
In any real debate, definitions should be agreed upon, whether it happens at the very beginning, or as the convo goes. Ideally, this should happen beforehand.
Quote:(February 19, 2013 at 12:08 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Except, when it comes to knowledge of a supreme being, it is. No one can know for sure.
I understand what you are saying. But I also understand how someone can know for sure. Think of how many things we know for sure, with regards to science, that will not be for sure in 200,000 years. You can't. In 200,000 years, is my belief of a flying spaghetti monster the truth? Genuinely calculating it, I'd currently give it a 1/2,589,300,000,000,000,000 chance. That isn't factoring in my objective chances of being right - that is just me factoring objectivity from my subjective position.
But, I didn't say anything about what we might know in the future. I was referring to evidence, or the lack of it, we have now.
Quote:(February 19, 2013 at 12:08 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Except beauty is subjective. Existence of a supreme being isn't.
Only if you trust the current human perception of objective reality. We have limited senses.
Really? There are so many fallacies in this, I don't know where to begin.
Quote:(February 19, 2013 at 12:08 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: I was really just talking about conversation in general, with the semantic debate coming as a result. I rarely seek out a debate.
You seek a debate if you disagree with the semantics of a conversation. Again, I understand you are saying their definitions are incorrect and yours are more objectively true so it isn't your fault.
Strawman. I never said anything about correct or incorrect. I laid out definitions for the purpose of this thread, that's all.
Quote:I don't believe the universe is free enough for it to be their fault either though. We can agree to disagree on that if you wish.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
