11 Apr 07
"What we got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it, any more than you men."
So, what about having a sticky thread with agreed definitions? That way, when it comes to debate, we're all talking from the same hymn sheet, as it were...
11 Apr 07
Originally posted by StarrmanThis is a fine idea in principle. I think Nemesio and RBHILL should be the first members of an Academie Francaise-style body for determining what goes in this thread. I eagerly await the decades of debate about what things will be defined in this list, the centuries of debate about what the definitions are to be, and the millenia of Spirituality threads in which they are ignored.
"What we got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it, any more than you men."
So, what about having a sticky thread with agreed definitions? That way, when it comes to debate, we're all talking from the same hymn sheet, as it were...
11 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyNo man can eat fifty eggs...
This is a fine idea in principle. I think Nemesio and RBHILL should be the first members of an Academie Francaise-style body for determining what goes in this thread. I eagerly await the decades of debate about what things will be defined in this list, the centuries of debate about what the definitions are to be, and the millenia of Spirituality threads in which they are ignored.
11 Apr 07
Originally posted by StarrmanI agree.
"What we got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it, any more than you men."
So, what about having a sticky thread with agreed definitions? That way, when it comes to debate, we're all talking from the same hymn sheet, as it were...
I'll start with a couple of science ones, 'theory', 'hypothesis' and law.
A scientific hypothesis is an idea, postulated by an individual, to explain or predict a set of observations or events. A hypothesis must be scientifically testable (i.e. can be disprovable by future observations) and must be parsimonious (requiring as few assumptions as possible).
A scientific theorum is an explanation of a large body of data, usually derived from multiple fields, although certainly multiple studies. A theory need not be complete, however should provide a simple, workable explanation for a significant body of work.
A law is a description, normally expressed mathematically, of the behaviour of a simple system, such as the laws of motion and gravitation describe the curved trajectory of a ball thrown into the air.
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by StarrmanGreat idea.
"What we got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it, any more than you men."
So, what about having a sticky thread with agreed definitions? That way, when it comes to debate, we're all talking from the same hymn sheet, as it were...
Let's define God as the creator of all that exists, all powerful, all knowing, eternal, holy, all loving, perfect in every way, and incapable of error.
Whether you believe God exists or not.
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by josephwyou tellin them funny stories again boy?
Great idea.
Let's define God as the creator of all that exists, all powerful, all knowing, eternal, holy, all loving, perfect in every way, and incapable of error.
Whether you believe God exists or not.
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by josephwThat would be josephw's god, unless you can get others to agree to this definition. I imagine many gods will feature here.
Great idea.
Let's define God as the creator of all that exists, all powerful, all knowing, eternal, holy, all loving, perfect in every way, and incapable of error.
Whether you believe God exists or not.
12 Apr 07
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwNow you have to define:
Great idea.
Let's define God as the creator of all that exists, all powerful, all knowing, eternal, holy, all loving, perfect in every way, and incapable of error.
Whether you believe God exists or not.
exists
eternal
holy
all loving
perfect
error
My understanding of some of those words would make it impossible to apply them to an all powerful, all knowing being.
And did he create himself or does he not exist? ("the creator of all that exists" )
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyAdd Dr Scribbles to that list and you have an unholy trinity. It would be even more exciting than the Great RHP Debate.
This is a fine idea in principle. I think Nemesio and RBHILL should be the first members of an Academie Francaise-style body for determining what goes in this thread. I eagerly await the decades of debate about what things will be defined in this list, the centuries of debate about what the definitions are to be, and the millenia of Spirituality threads in which they are ignored.
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageTrinitarian scum! I think the definition thread should be written by two people, in acknowledgement of the inherent dualism of definitions: something is something and it isn't something else! I'll not agree to any further definitions until this is a dualistic thread!
Add Dr Scribbles to that list and you have an unholy trinity. It would be even more exciting than the Great RHP Debate.
(😉)
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyI disagree--although not about the scum part. A neutral stance is always possible. Can we agree on what defines the neutral?
Trinitarian scum! I think the definition thread should be written by two people, in acknowledgement of the inherent dualism of definitions: something is something and it isn't something else! I'll not agree to any further definitions until this is a dualistic thread!
(😉)
12 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanThere are two issues here. You have the dictionary defined words and then you have words defined by religious texts that differ from those words. Which is correct? Which definitioin should be given more weight? The Theist would argue that the religious definition should be given more weight, especially when discussing spiritual issues and the atheist who thinks that the religious texts are bunk think that secular definitions should only be used. Also, can words have more than one meaning? For example, the word love can have a myriad of different meanings and is better defined via langauges such as Greek which seek to distinguish such meanings. Then you have the problem of concepts in which you subjective thought enters the picture. For example, what gives something meaning? Well, meaning is purely subjective in nature in this regard. It differs upon whom you ask.
"What we got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it, any more than you men."
So, what about having a sticky thread with agreed definitions? That way, when it comes to debate, we're all talking from the same hymn sheet, as it were...
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyDefine scum.
Trinitarian scum! I think the definition thread should be written by two people, in acknowledgement of the inherent dualism of definitions: something is something and it isn't something else! I'll not agree to any further definitions until this is a dualistic thread!
(😉)