Magical thinking.

Anarchon said:
I defined them specifically. When you find them, if you find them, will you apologize?
Click to expand...

Any time I am wrong...I always apologize.

I've read your comments on natural and supernatural...and they most assuredly are not definitions of those words. But if I am wrong...I most assuredly WILL apologize...and it will be a sincere apology.

What about you, by the way. Do you apologize when you are wrong? Or are you someone who is never wrong?
 
Last edited:
kudzu said:
Atheism isn't a faith.. Its the absence of belief in the supernatural.
Click to expand...

"Atheism" is a descriptor that some people use. It means so many different things to so many different people...it is virtually useless as a descriptor. People should not use it...but should instead state their position on the issue of "Are there any gods?"
 
kudzu said:
Same with coal miners.. If Dad and his sons were killed in an explosion all the survivors were turned out of company housing.
Click to expand...

Dreadfu! I think the SWMF and the NUM were too tough for that, but mostly the coal-owners left it to private enterprise with us
 
kudzu said:
You have heard of the company store and the private armies, haven't you?
Click to expand...
Oh, sure. We had the strongest branch of the strongest union in the world at one time, and mining didn't develop in this valley till the days of the company stores were long gone.
 
Anarchon said:
That was not one of my premises.
Click to expand...

it would be easier to tell if you used English.....I'm not even certain you have any premises......when you said ....
If an entity has objective reality or being, it has a physical effect on the universe.
Click to expand...
weren't you implying that the entity was required to have a natural being to have a physical effect?......
 
Frank Apisa said:
But apparently you are unwilling to define what "natural" and "supernatural" mean...in an attempt to get away with it.
Click to expand...

Anarchon said:
I defined them specifically. When you find them, if you find them, will you apologize?
Click to expand...

Frank Apisa said:
Any time I am wrong...I always apologize.
Click to expand...

Anarchon said:
The set of natural entities, N, and the set of supernatural entities, S, are defined thusly:
N={n: ∀n, nPU}
S={s: ∀s, s¬∈N}
In other words:
S=N^C
Click to expand...

I won't hold my breath.
 
Anarchon said:
I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...

If that is actually a definition...I offer my apologies.

I do not understand what is written there in any way...and for you to suppose that to be understandable to those of us discussing this issue the way we are...is questionable.

But my apology is sincere...and the only qualification is that you might has well have been offering that "definition" in Farsi.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it would be easier to tell if you used English.....I'm not even certain you have any premises......when you said ....
weren't you implying that the entity was required to have a natural being to have a physical effect?......
Click to expand...

Whatshisnuts up there said I didn't have the symbols, logic, nor language to do it. The reason it's not in English is because of the criteria of his challenge.

But, no...what you quoted was not a premise. That was a conditional statement making use of two of the premises. And no, what you asked is not what that statement said. It means exactly what it says.
 
Frank Apisa said:
If that is actually a definition...I offer my apologies.

I do not understand what is written there in any way...and for you to suppose that to be understandable to those of us discussing this issue the way we are...is questionable.

But my apology is sincere...and the only qualification is that you might has well have been offering that "definition" in Farsi.
Click to expand...

That proof was meant for the guy that asked for it, it was written in that language because of his criteria. That was big of you to apologize, and I accept it.

The premises used in it, translated to English, are as follows:
1. Natural entities have a physical effect on the universe.
2. Supernatural is disjoint from natural.
3. Gods are supernatural entities.
4. Existence requires objective reality or being.
 
Anarchon said:
That proof was meant for the guy that asked for it, it was written in that language because of his criteria. That was big of you to apologize, and I accept it.

The premises used in it, translated to English, are as follows:
1. Natural entities have a physical effect on the universe.
2. Supernatural is disjoint from natural.
3. Gods are supernatural entities.
4. Existence requires objective reality or being.
Click to expand...

Okay...I'm sorry I'm not up to the notation.

Let's try this another way:

Are you saying there are things that exist...that are not part of nature?

This is important because I maintain that if any gods exist...they are not supernatural.

They are a part of nature.

In fact, the term "supernatural being" seems like an incongruity to me.

How can a thing exist and not be a part of nature...of "what is?"

They may be a part of nature that we do not understand (we puny humans)...but IF they (or anything) exist(s)...they ARE a part of nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top