Posted: Jan 14, 2019 12:55 am
Calilasseia wrote:The contention I propose, as an atheist, is that the question of the existence of a god-type entity remains unanswered, and is not yet currently answerable.
Really? Which god-type entity is that?
Calilasseia wrote:I'm minded to take an in depth look at this ...
Really? Be sure to include plenty of rigor.
Calilasseia wrote:But I remain open to the possibility that both of these status values for that question may change at some point in the future, if our knowledge expands to the point where the question can be subjected to a proper, rigorous test.
Mm-hm. Which god-type entity would that be? Surely not the one concocted by pre-scientific peoples of ancient times. Their attempts have been on the books for thousands of years. So, we must be thinking that the status values might somehow be updated at some point in the future by fitting something properly god-like into the god-shaped hole bequeathed us by the goat-roasters, you know, as that vaunted exercise in pattern matching.
You're welcome to suspend belief until then. I'm fine with calling it a god-shaped hole. Status value? Hole! And that's my approach, for you: Holistic. Or maybe better, a-hole-istic.
Calilasseia wrote:Except that once again, in accordance with the proper rules of discourse, they are presenting assertions on this matter, therefore they're required to support those assertions, with something other than Derrida-esque fabrications.
Just as severe a problem is not just the Derrida-esque fabrications, but also the analytic fabrications with language like status-values. Let's have another chorus on the relata of a property-exemplification nexus. Don't fail to miss the characteristic rigor of that approach.