04 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RaindearWell, when somebody says "unicorns are non-existent" is certainly seems from the structure of the sentence that the property of being non-existent is being predicated of unicorns. Since that's absurd, I guess we shouldn't go aroung getting our metaphysics directly from the surface grammer of sentences in public languages. So, when you ask...
Not existing is not a property, because a thing cannot have properties unless it exists.
How do you define property?
"So you do not think the way we speak of things corresponds to the way they are in reality?"
...you should recognize that not even you think that the way we speak of things necessarily corresponds to how those things really are.
Here's a nice entry on properties, if you're looking for definitions:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties/
04 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by RaindearBesides, the way "existence" functions in our language is not the same as the way terms for standard properties, such as colour properties, function. Look again at my paintings example above - would anyone really utter the second sentence? What could it mean?
So you do not think the way we speak of things corresponds to the way they are in reality?
05 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrIt's absurd to say that anything has the property of non-existing. But it is not absurd to say that a unicorn does not exist.
Well, when somebody says "unicorns are non-existent" is certainly seems from the structure of the sentence that the property of being non-existent is being predicated of unicorns. Since that's absurd, I guess we shouldn't go aroung getting our metaphysics directly from the surface grammer of sentences in public languages. So, when you ask...
"So you do not ies, if you're looking for definitions:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties/
If you said that a unicorn existed, for instance, we would call that statement false. Why? The sentence posits a false claim about reality.
05 May 06
Originally posted by RaindearYes, so?
It's absurd to say that anything has the property of non-existing. But it is not absurd to say that a unicorn does not exist.
If you said that a unicorn existed, for instance, we would call that statement false. Why? The sentence posits a false claim about reality.
05 May 06
Okay, have you ever read the Bible?
There is proof enough in God's Word.
You are wrong about Christians.
Christians believe in the Lord as their own personal savior.
Christians believe in Everlasting Life.
John 3:16: For God So Loved The World That He Gave His Only Begotten Son,
That Whosoever Believes In Him Will Not Perish, But Will Have Everlasting Life.
05 May 06
Originally posted by NosracWhat a great thread!
Okay, have you ever read the Bible?
There is proof enough in God's Word.
You are wrong about Christians.
Christians believe in the Lord as their own personal savior.
Christians believe in Everlasting Life.
John 3:16: For God So Loved The World That He Gave His Only Begotten Son,
That Whosoever Believes In Him Will Not Perish, But Will Have Everlasting Life.
I'm afraid I would only bring things down considerably if I weighed in with ideas. I'm learning quite a bit.
Please, keep it up.
P.S. Nosrac, nothing I wrote above refers to your post (which I have quoted).
05 May 06
Originally posted by telerionTel. Tel. *Wagging finger while hiding my mouth with the other hand*
What a great thread!
I'm afraid I would only bring things down considerably if I weighed in with ideas. I'm learning quite a bit.
Please, keep it up.
P.S. Nosrac, nothing I wrote above refers to your post (which I have quoted).
05 May 06
Originally posted by NosracEh, back to square one it seems.
Okay, have you ever read the Bible?
There is proof enough in God's Word.
You are wrong about Christians.
Christians believe in the Lord as their own personal savior.
Christians believe in Everlasting Life.
John 3:16: For God So Loved The World That He Gave His Only Begotten Son,
That Whosoever Believes In Him Will Not Perish, But Will Have Everlasting Life.
I admit I've always been curious... why such drama over God's "only begotten son"? Surely God could have begotten us another ten if He'd wanted to.
At the same time let us not forget that while God may have loved us enough to send said child to die for our sins, God seemed to prefer the mass extinction route in the time leading up to Jesus's birth.
Something to consider.
-JC