Patrick Elliott wrote:
> This is just a naturalist version of the supernatural. Its no more 
> useful, profound, or meaningful than the theist version, and makes just 
> as much sense to propose, which is "none". 

I think he was just defining what "supernatural" could possibly mean. It's 
not meaningless to talk about the supernatural, even if it doesn't exist. 
Just like it's less meaningless to talk about unicorns than about flimbrusters.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message