Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Facts for evolutionists
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chalnoth" data-source="post: 48446759" data-attributes="member: 159254"><p>Oh, I don't really care whether or not it's accepted. I care whether it's <em>correct</em>. And as near as I can tell, it is.</p><p></p><p>Since we agree on what is meant by naturalism, then I will simply state again the rest of the argument:</p><p></p><p>The proposal that there exist anything that is supernatural is the proposal that there exist an entity or entities that are in some sense ineffable. They <em>cannot</em>, by their nature, be described in any explicit sense.</p><p></p><p>This sort of claim fails on two grounds:</p><p>1. There is no evidence whatsoever that there can possibly be anything which is fundamentally ineffable. It makes no sense whatsoever for this to be the case, and there's no reason to believe it's anything but dreams.</p><p>2. By proposing the ineffable, you're refusing to state what you mean by the words you use. That means you aren't actually proposing anything. Therefore it makes no sense to even say that the supernatural exists, because anything that has this ineffable quality is downright <em>meaningless</em>.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chalnoth, post: 48446759, member: 159254"] Oh, I don't really care whether or not it's accepted. I care whether it's [i]correct[/i]. And as near as I can tell, it is. Since we agree on what is meant by naturalism, then I will simply state again the rest of the argument: The proposal that there exist anything that is supernatural is the proposal that there exist an entity or entities that are in some sense ineffable. They [i]cannot[/i], by their nature, be described in any explicit sense. This sort of claim fails on two grounds: 1. There is no evidence whatsoever that there can possibly be anything which is fundamentally ineffable. It makes no sense whatsoever for this to be the case, and there's no reason to believe it's anything but dreams. 2. By proposing the ineffable, you're refusing to state what you mean by the words you use. That means you aren't actually proposing anything. Therefore it makes no sense to even say that the supernatural exists, because anything that has this ineffable quality is downright [i]meaningless[/i]. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Facts for evolutionists
Top
Bottom