Originally posted by seer
View Post
Frankly, there is no response to that objection. What we have labeled "supernatural" is, as best we can tell, outside of anything science can explore or any natural laws we have access to. There is no compelling evidence that they exist anywhere outside of the human imagination. So anyone can say pretty much anything about them, and the rest of us can only nod and say, "ok...if that's what you think." We cannot show that Zeus does not conform to a "higher principle. We cannot show that Vishnu does not conform to a "higher principle." Heck, we cannot show that Merlin does not conform to a "higher principle." We can't make ANY definitive statements about something that cannot be shown to be real. So, until someone can show these things actually ARE investigatable and actually DO conform to some form of "law" or "principle," we will likely continue to see them as "supernatural."
Originally posted by seer
View Post
As for "being caught arguing in circles" on moral issues, Seer, you are (frankly) in no position to even begin to assess that. You are continuously oblivious to the content-free nature of your arguments, so you have essentially no basis for critiquing mine.
Finally, my statement "content-free circles" was not intended to be a claim that you had made the logical error of assuming your conclusion, so perhaps I should have chosen a different word. The point is, Seer, that you keep making points that are easily agreed to (i.e., language definition is arbitrary) and then deriving from them conclusions that are largely unsustainable by the observation. And you essentially refute your position just by posting. After all, if the meaning of words are arbitrary and so subject to change on a whim, how is it you can even write a sentence and expect anyone to understand it!? Like the rest of us, you depend on words having commonly accepted meaning just so you can communicate with us...but then complain that it's all arbitrary.
It is just a tad funny. Maybe that's why I find myself continually coming back to it.
Comment