Definitions sticky

"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...

Originally posted by Starrman
"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...

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.

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
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.

No man can eat fifty eggs...

Originally posted by Starrman
"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 agree.

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.

Originally posted by Starrman
No man can eat fifty eggs...

Please define "man", "fifty" and "egg".

Originally posted by Starrman
"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...

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.

Originally posted by josephw
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.

you tellin them funny stories again boy?

Originally posted by josephw
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.

That would be josephw's god, unless you can get others to agree to this definition. I imagine many gods will feature here.

Originally posted by josephw
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.

Now you have to define:
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" )

I've tried to get some definitions down. I didn't have much luck. Check out this thread:

http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22541

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
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.

Add Dr Scribbles to that list and you have an unholy trinity. It would be even more exciting than the Great RHP Debate.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Add Dr Scribbles to that list and you have an unholy trinity. It would be even more exciting than the Great RHP Debate.

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!

(😉)

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
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!

(😉)

I disagree--although not about the scum part. A neutral stance is always possible. Can we agree on what defines the neutral?

Originally posted by Starrman
"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...

There 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.

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
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!

(😉)

Define scum.