>>>
>>>>We had a debate previously on "existence" where you tried,
>>>>repeatedly, to pull me into a naturalist realm
>>>
>>>That's not how I remember it. But I do remember pushing
>you
>>>to be more precise about what you mean by the term.
>>
>>And I used a dictionary because I'm not a qualified linguist
>>of the English language.
>
>Oh, so your excuse for doing something stupid is that you
>aren't very smart. Alright. I'm not very smart either, but
>I'm not using that as a copout.

ok. I'm not very smart.

>>>>(even when I
>>>>quoted freaking Webster and proved that our top linguist
>>>>didn't even define "existence" as necessarily
>>naturalistic).
>>>
>>>He didn't define it at all! I still don't see why you're
>>>getting so worked up over "freaking" Webster. When
>>>considering life's deepest questions, you don't look for
>>>answers in the "freaking" dictionary. At that time, I was
>>>asking you to do the work of a philosopher, not of a
>>linguist.
>>
>>So, then, you were asking me to ask more questions? And
>when
>>you told me to "define" something, you really meant "humor
>>me"?
>
>No, I was asking you to clarify what you *meant* by the term.
>To define it, in a logical context, not a colloquial context.

No, actually you asked me to define it. If your terminology isn't correct, that's your problem.

>
>
>>>>All that was concluded is that existence corresponds,
>>>exactly,
>>>>to "that which is".
>>>
>>>That was most certainly not "concluded"! That's where you
>>>began, and apparently where you remain, but it's been a
>>>tautology all along.
>>
>>how? It can be relavant on a physiological or metaphysical
>>realm, so how can you call it a tautology?
>
>Jesus Christ! How can you still be arguing about this?! You
>defined "truth" as "that which is." That's no different than
>saying 1+1=2 because 2=2.

No, what I was saying is that 1+1=2 in whatever place 1+1=2 because, at some point, somewhere, 1+1=2, just as we can conclude that something, somewhere, exists.

>If you're just willing to be naive about the details, go
>ahead, you're not alone among the evangelical community. Just
>don't turn around and pretend to have a logical justification
>for your faith.

If a purpose for living isn't logical justification... then I concede.

>
>That, and don't be stepping into inverse's argument. He's
>handling it better than you are.

I'm sure he is... I was really just making sure you were the same dude. Again, no offense..