Stuck Between Agnosticism and Christianity

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bunny,


'non-physical entity' is a contradictio in terminis.

'non-physical interaction' is also a contradictio in terminis.


Both of these sentences lack logical meaning, are thus not knowledge, and so do not answer Q3.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I said - I dont understand how you use words, so I doubted we'd have much of a fruitful discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]


What words don't you understand?

[/ QUOTE ]
"Contradictio in terminus" for starters. Also things like "that is not a knowledge statement" or "agnosticism is not a belief position". Phrases like that are very alien to me and I struggle to understand what you're talking about. I also think we use "knowledge" differently - I go with true, justified belief (with some unspecified causal restrictions on the justification used which dont particularly interest me). For instance, above you seem to imply that the only way to answer "what is god?" is if you know what god is. I dont think that is true - I think you can have a belief without deeming it knowledge. Previously I've ploughed ahead making assumptions about what you mean with certain words only to find out later I wasnt close.

I think our fundamental difference is deeper though in that you seem to limit existence to only include physical objects. Whereas I thought the possibility of non-physical objects was what we were discussing. If you begin by saying "only physical things exist" as you seem to, then it is obvious that god doesnt exist. I dont accept the premise though. Some examples of non-physical entities I think exist are circles, the number pi, the rule of modus ponens, the subjective experience of seeing blue, God, etcetera. I dont know how else to make sense of the phrase "Pi is bigger than three but smaller than four" It seems the same as "Jack is taller than Jane but smaller than Jim" which is true or false based on the properties of the objects Jack, Jane and Jim. I think the truth of the first statement depends in a similar way on the properties of the non-physical objects Pi, three and four.

I regard the universe as consisting of a physical part and a non-physical part. If I'm wrong about that, I'm clearly wrong about God. But labelling non-physical object as a contradiction seems to be begging the question to me.

Apologies if some/most of this is irrelevant but as I say, I'm usually not clear where you're coming from so dont know what to address.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that might have been fun. Not that familiar w/ InTheDark. Might be just as much of an insult.

[/ QUOTE ]

His posting style is exactly the same as yours, and he seems to share the same views as you, or at least, the views he feels worth posting about are the same as the ones I remember you posting about. Since you are not banned, you just havent posted in SMP for a while, I guess it doesnt make much sense for him to actually BE you.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What words don't you understand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't speak for bunny, but I've noticed that when it comes to usage, you often strain at a logical gnats, and swallow colloquial camels. You might think it makes you look smart, but it actually makes you look like you are trying to look smart, which in turn makes you look dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]
qft.

edit: not sure if I will end up on ignore by association!

[IronUnkind]

I'd never write something this dumb.

I'm pretty sure I've figured out his true identity, though.