|
>>> >>>>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..
***I'm a Child of Production***
|