Sujet : Re: Is Belief in God Rational? A Fresh Look at the Evidence
De : jtem01 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (JTEM)
Groupes : talk.originsDate : 27. Jun 2025, 11:25:01
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Eek
Message-ID : <103lrht$397b$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/27/25 6:05 AM, jillery wrote:
Consider the question: Is it possible to sufficiently analyze magic?
If technology is phenomena based on natural law, and magic is
phenomena based on supernatural law, then in principle anything that
can be sufficiently analyzed is by definition technology. If I could
reliably make phenomena happen by waving a stick and/or chanting odd
words, then I would have identified a natural law, which makes it not
magic by definition.
Autism isn't an argument, you nimrod.
Honey; it ain't a law unless it's first a theory, and it ain't
a theory unless it's first a hypothesis and it ain't a
hypothesis without predictions -- the basis for experimentation.
You need to stick to arguing that "Paradox" is French for "An
erroneous assumption." You shit at that too, but you're a lot
more practiced at it....
-- https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
Is Belief in God Rational? A Fresh Look at the Evidence
Re: Is Belief in God Rational? A Fresh Look at the Evidence
