On 10/20/2010 11:15 PM, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
>
Depends on your definition of "meaningful". When applied to sciences, 
some concepts involve much stricter limits, on what is being implied. 
Its perfectly meaningful to talk about such things in the context of 
pure imagination. Its utterly useless, if your intent is to understand 
things that have tangible realities (and, no I don't mean you get to 
stretch that definition to include, "But, people draw them, so they are 
"tangible"). lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message