quote:

"Hate to be rude, but you really need to watch your mouth..."

Oh I'm sorry Dearie! So so sorry if you were deeply hurt. If you're still licking your wounds, I'll give you enough time to reply. I will treat you with more "tenderness" this time. Meanwhile, you have an unfinished job; you skipped in answering my last post. Didn't you read the middle part correctly? Please harmonize your old definition v.s. new definition (I hope by now you realize why I say You've making flip-flop statements). Oh baby, I can understand. Maybe this is another one of those "AMNESIA-tic EPISODES". Since you're my favorite I am re-posting it here for your convenience darling. I will give my reply to your last post after this. Please don't forget to take your "MEMORY ENHANCER" okay?

AN UNSOLICITED ADVICE: Honey, do yourself a favor by avoiding changing "DEFINITIONS" and/or "TERMS OF REFERENCE" in the middle of the debate. It "REVOKES" everything you said from the very beginning (specifically those that rests on your "OLD&UNREASONABLE" definition. You're not only making yourself look "BAD", it makes you look "SENILE" by "REPUDIATING" an entire two-page worth of posts. You don't only degrade the thread, you degrade yourself by using an "UNREASONABLE&UNRELIABLE" definition. Also, it makes your argument (prior to the redefinition) and your argument (after the redefinition) contradict each other. Do you realize how much you have "BASTARDIZED" the whole thing?

MY APOLOGIES: Sorry for those jargons. I have overestimated you. It won't happen again sweetie!


P.S. Please stop whining! They don't have a baby-sitter here to change your diaper. Please do it at home. This is not my reply but an injunction for you to first harmonize your two contradicting arguments. The one before the redefinition of blind faith and the other after you have redefined it. In the meantime, you have a job to do.

I am re-posting it here.

quote:
"My made the inital confusion with believing in the Bible, and believing the entire Bible is true. I HAVE REFINED MY DEFINTION (so please don't try any longer to "use it against me.")"

I'm glad you admitted that finally; however, i have reservations with the word "initial". You refined your definition only on your previous to the last post.So, the whole time your definition was inaccurate until the second to last post.Which means further that your entire argument prior to refinement of definition was founded on an unreasonable definition. Therefore, your whole argument prior to last two post ago was wrong. In fact you admitted it by saying:

quote:
"I was using an unreasonable definition at the start, I now have a more reasonable one, one that by which belief in all of the Bible would still be said to require blind faith if only 30% of it (assuming most of these are historical facts, and the like) are verified."

You mean, prior to the redefinition belief in all the bible would not be blind faith if 30% of it is accurate. You need to see a doctor man. I'm not sure but my friends call it "alzheimer's disease".


quote:
"I have not been making contradictory statments all along, I clearly redefined blind faith. I was using an unreasonable definition at the start, I now have a more reasonable one, one that by which belief in all of the Bible would still be said to require blind faith _if_ only 30% of it (assuming most of these are historical facts, and the like) are verified."

It's good that you accept that you have been using an "unreasonable definition" which you refined only last two posts ago.This tantamounts to an admission that all your arguments (until you refined your definition i.e. last two posts ago) were based on an erroneous concept of blind faith (which was the crux of our debate). And you have the gall to proclaim my debate has been the worst you've seen.

PLEASE REBUT ALL MY REPLIES AFTER YOUR STATEMENT.

Yellowfairy,
First off, yes I do believe in Armagedon and the rapture/second coming. What do you mean that after the rapture "everyone gets to choose." WHATS THE WHOLE POINT OF LIVING IN THIS LIFE NOW, SO THAT WHEN THE WORLD ENDS WE GET TO MAKE OUR DECISION, "HELL" NO!!!!!! After the rapture and Armagedon it's either "away from me, I know you not", or "my "CHILD!", welcome home."-------
Being born-again is the only way to "grow" in your faith. You know the parable of the seeds? A few fell on a rock and were quickly eaten, others were choked out by the worries of this life, and a few, A FEW, actually took root and grew. Well, what I am saying is that that story is an analogy of God's children here on earth. Some of his children, or "seeds", never took heard his word, but that does not negate or nullify the fact that they are still HIS seeds/children! it is not by excepting "god" into your life, but his son, Jesus christ."I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man may come to the father except through me." These were Jesus' words to the jews. The entire point and aim of God creating us is so that we would come to know him "as he knwos us." And the ONLY way to do this is through Jesus Christ. This I will agree with you on. Now, let me break down for you what Jesus was saying when he said "no man may COME TO THE FATHER EXCEPT BY ME." Can you remember the parable of the son? Well, many of us are children of God, and due to our circumstances or whatnot, we are NEVER IN OUR LIFETIME able to hear the word of God and Jesus Christ. There were many people who lived before the time of Christ. IF accepting Jesus Christ is "the only way", then basically you are saying that everyone who came before him, and those that have NEVER heard of him, are screwed. I find it hard to believe that my God would be that heartless and unfair. Here's the thing. Those who lived before J.C. and those who live today who have not or WILL NOT EVER hear of him may have the chance to go to heaven, IF they are "children of God." This all has to do with predestination. You are familiar with the verse "While you were still in your mothers womb,I formed you, I knew you." This has to do with predestination. God planned out who would be his children, and those who would go on to mature in the word of god and grow to be his sons. BOTH HIS CHILDREN AND HIS SONS ARE GOING TO HEAVEN. but you see, it is not "getting to heaven" that the christian should be interested in. A christian should be motivated and concerned with 1) spreading the word of God EVERYWHERE, and 2) Growing deeper in love with God in mind, heart, and soul, so that we might know him as he knows us.
THIS IS THE ULTIMATE POINT OF CHRISTIANITY.

I wanted to clarify what I said on my last post so you don't accuse me again of things. I want to show you what I mean by flip-flopping of your statements. Let's see who looks "MORE STUPID" and "CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT".


CONTRADICTION NO.1
I-
"If we have a box of 20 balls, the color of each ball being unknown, and we draw 19 red balls, does inductive reasonsing suggest that the 20th ball is red? No, since the color of that ball is independent of the color of the other 19."

II-
"If 99% is correct, it's a LOT MORE reasonable to now say that the Bible is reliable, and the 1% that's unknown, it may be reasonable to say it's correct."

FINDINGS: 19 out of 20 is 95% accuracy. So what you're saying is: if you have been 99% accurate, it may be reasonable to believe that the remaining 1% is accurate but if you have been 95% accurate it is unreasonable to believe that the remaining 5% is accurate. This is really insane!



CONTRADICTION no.2
I-
"If you don't prove that ALL of Christianity is based on fact, then if you believe EVERYTHING in the Bible, you do require blind faith, and thus your belief is based on blind faith."

II-
"Okay, let's define a few things first. Blind Faith is accepting something when there's no good reason to except it (i.e. there's no proof or reliability or credibility)."

FINDINGS: Take note that in the second instance, in order for christianity not to be based on blind faith it is sufficient that there is good reason to accept it. Corollarily, it is no longer required that "ALL of Christianity is based on fact" as you stated above. Man, I don't need to explain how these two claims are contradictory. It's plain to see.



CONTRADICTION NO.3
I-
"I was using an unreasonable definition at the start, I now have a more reasonable one, one that by which belief in all of the Bible would still be said to require blind faith if only 30% of it (assuming most of these are historical facts, and the like) are verified."

II-
quote:
"If ONLY 30% of the Bible were true (keep in mind that you used the word "only") then the rest would be false, and if people believed the rest, it would stand to reason that 70% of the Bible is accepted" on blind faith.

FINDINGS: The first statement means that: if 30% of the bible were verified belief in "ALL THE BIBLE" would require blind faith.

However, under the second statement this is what it says: if 30% of the bible were verified and if people believed the rest (70% remaining), the 70% of the bible is accepted on blind faith.

I hope it's clear to you that: In the second statement only 70% is based on blind faith while under the first statement belief in "ALL THE BIBLE" i.e. 100% would still be based on blind faith. Which is which (70% V.S.100%).


RECOMMENDATION: My friend, I'm sorry for saying you need professional help. I WAS WRONG & I'M SORRY MY FRIEND! I JUST REALIZED THAT WHAT YOU NEED IS NO LESS THAN 13 SESIONS OF LOBOTOMY!

[This message was edited by jun on 03-07-04 at 12:30 PM.]

A posteriori knowledge of the existence of the Judeo-Christian God is what I have. I have this knowledge through witnessing miraculous events (such as healings and specific revelations) coinciding with prayer to the Judeo-Christian God and reading of the scriptures of Christian theology. Given the chances of such events being so coincidental, so often, it can be deduced that such events are due to the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. In doing so, it can also be deduced that the Judeo-Christian scriptures are very likely to be those of divine revelation, as they speak of a truthful entity (God), otherwise unknown to man.

I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short. -Blaise Pascal

jun

Check your private messages.

Stem the lies, Cedric (did I call you Cecil in a previous post? I have no idea where that came from).

You saw no miracles or anything that resembles that word. You simply saw things working out. Personal things, Cedric, not universal things. Rember that word Cedric, universal. Rember it's definition. Actually forget the word, just remember the definition. Just the definition.

As for Jun and AKG... What the hell are you both babbling on about? Eh? It's like watching two adults arguing over how a word is pronounced or if something is more green than blue or more blue than green. What exactly are you both trying to prove? If it's still that thing about percentages etc. Then start a debate with the title...

What percentage of facts determines if the remaining percentage is percieved as fact or fiction?

I'll even post on it.

quote:

---

You saw no miracles or anything that resembles that word. You simply saw things working out.

---

You are hardly in a suitable position to determine the precise circumstances of the events that took place for ol' Twisty here. Nor is it for you to make absolutes on them either, unless you want to provide some type of evidential proof. Furthermore, suggesting that miracles cannot occur is by no means a scientific statement.

Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee.~ Immanuel Kant
Dos moi pou sto kai kino taen gaen. ~Archimedes

quote:

---

You are hardly in a suitable position to determine the precise circumstances of the events that took place for ol' Twisty here.

---

Perhaps not, but perhaps also you are not aware that Cedric here never actually gives specifics. I know why, it is because I shall swoop down on them like a vulture and have my way with them!

quote:

---

Nor is it for you to make absolutes on them either, unless you want to provide some type of evidential proof.

---

Absolutes on what? Similarly, evidential proof on what? Have you read something I haven't? Cedric hasn't given me something to smite.

quote:

---

Furthermore, suggesting that miracles cannot occur is by no means a scientific statement.

---

Eh? Who said I am a scientific riddler?

quote:

---

Furthermore, suggesting that miracles cannot occur is by no means a scientific statement.

---

Actually, I think Skeg said that Twister did not see any miracles, not that miracles "cannot occur".

I, possibly on the other hand, have no problem with saying, outright, that miracles cannot occur.

My argument (expounded in a recent debate to the point of abject nausea for all concerned ) goes a little something like this:

A miracle, by definition, cannot occur. If it could, it would hardly be a miracle now would it? Anyone want to follow the "spiritual leader" who performs the "miracle of the unwashed socks" or the "holy shoddily repaired door hinge"? - I didn't think so. They gotta be impossible, or they ain't much of miracles.

This is not the same as saying that miracles do not occur, or did not occur in any particular instance. That I wouldn't know about. Having said that (there's always more with me, isn't there?), I'd say it was perfectly reasonable from a scientific standpoint to deduce that, since it is scentifically impossible to (eg) conjure water into wine, a claim to have done so is, well, wrong.

You might recall the scientific reaction to recent claims that some scientists made about successfully performing so-called "cold" fusion. "Sorry guys", the scientific community said, "if you can't repeat it, we must assume it didn't occur".

The other thing Skeg wrote was that Twister's claims were "lies", which is a breach of DF rule 4. Naughty!

Davdoodles
XXX

[This message was edited by Davdoodles on 03-08-04 at 05:47 PM.]

quote:

---

Stem the lies, Cedric (did I call you Cecil in a previous post? I have no idea where that came from).

You saw no miracles or anything that resembles that word.

---

This is dogma, Basil (whilst we're using presumptions on all accounts).

quote:

---

I know why, it is because I shall swoop down on them like a vulture and have my way with them!

---

Off course, dear Skeg.

Nor is it for you to make absolutes on them either, unless you want to provide some type of evidential proof.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nor is it for you to make absolutes on them either, unless you want to provide some type of evidential proof.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Absolutes on what? Similarly, evidential proof on what? Have you read something I haven't? Cedric hasn't given me something to smite.

---

Absolutes in stating that I am not telling the truth, by saying that I did not witness any miraculous (highly improbable) events. I have given nothing for you to smite for the sake of baiting you Skeg. You bit. You shot yourself in the foot by showing how dogmatic your view is. You assumed, despite the empiricist façade. Shall I bait some more?

quote:

---

This is not the same as saying that miracles do not occur, or did not occur in any particular instance. That I wouldn't know about. Having said that (there's always more with me, isn't there?), I'd say it was perfectly reasonable from a scientific standpoint to deduce that, since it is scentifically impossible to (eg) conjure water into wine, a claim to have done so is, well, wrong.

---

Provided that it is a function of the universe (e.g. human) that performs this act, this last statement is true. However, if an external creator performs such an act, it is not for you to say whether it is impossible. I must also point out that provided the right reatcants are present and the right conditions exist, water can be turned into wine. You may recall from high school chemistry that the reaction of an ester and water produces a carboxylic acid and an alcohol. Provided our ester (found naturally in fruits) has as it's substituent chain an ethyl alcohol, we have here our functional component of wine.

The miracles, including ones I've witnessed and others I know: Raising from the dead (laugh as much as you want, for I shall laugh back much louder), regained usage of a seriously damaged arm (nerve damage), simple instant healings from headaches and viral disease (I myself have experienced both of these). Added to this are accurate prophecies of my abilities and personallity (bear in mind that I had never talked to these people- it has happened numerous times- nor hd anyone else ever talked about me.) and other such accurate thoughts on others.
Mock all you will Skeg. Cynicism from yourself is always entertaining. Bear in mind though: a priori knowledge is different to an assumption.

I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short. -Blaise Pascal

Skeg- Twister answered most of your questions. But:

quote:

---

Perhaps not, but perhaps also you are not aware that Cedric here never actually gives specifics. I know why, it is because I shall swoop down on them like a vulture and have my way with them!

---

With regards to whether it was a miracle or not - you know nothing. You only presume, and with no strong ground since you do not even know what happened.

Davdoodles- I would love to know how you are defining a miracle. I tend to use the dictionary to retrieve my definitions. It seems to me that you think that our scientific system is complete.

Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee.~ Immanuel Kant
Dos moi pou sto kai kino taen gaen. ~Archimedes

quote:

---

Absolutes in stating that I am not telling the truth

---

Which you're not.

quote:

---

I have given nothing for you to smite for the sake of baiting you Skeg. You bit.

---

Of course I bit, I always bite. Now that you're dangling me on a piece of string, deliver the death blow. But I forget, you never do that, do you Cedric? Your middle name is "non specific". By never giving specifics, nobody can flaw your weaknesses. Yeah, I see how you work Cedric, but I also see through it.

quote:

---

You shot yourself in the foot by showing how dogmatic your view is.

---

Not yet I haven't, Cedric. As not only have you not given universal accounts, but you haven't even given accounts of your personal posteriori knowledge and where your foundations for faith lie. Tut tut, (i'm also waving my index finger at the screen in a sideways motion, just so you know my dissapointment).

quote:

---

With regards to whether it was a miracle or not - you know nothing. You only presume, and with no strong ground since you do not even know what happened.

---

Exactly. How can I do anything but presume if I know nothing? Hopefully Cedric will get his act together and give us some material. I think somebody may have told him that being mysterious makes him attractive. Maybe it does, but let's just cross our fingers this time.

quote:

---

Davdoodles- I would love to know how you are defining a miracle. I tend to use the dictionary to retrieve my definitions. It seems to me that you think that our scientific system is complete.

---

He would define them just the same as us all. However, like me, he rejects they exist. The definitive term remains the same.

quote:

---

He would define them just the same as us all. However, like me, he rejects they exist. The definitive term remains the same.

---

Perhaps, then, you could provide me with the definition that you are referring to. Davdoodles goes one step further. He proposes that miracles cannot occur by definition.

Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee.~ Immanuel Kant
Dos moi pou sto kai kino taen gaen. ~Archimedes

quote:

---

Davdoodles- I would love to know how you are defining a miracle. I tend to use the dictionary to retrieve my definitions.

---

miracle \Mir"a*cle\, n. [F., fr. L. miraculum, fr. mirari to wonder. See Marvel, and cf. Mirror.]
...
2. Specifically: An event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature; a supernatural event, or one transcending the ordinary laws by which the universe is governed...

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Miracle mir·a·cle (mr-kl) n. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God...

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

quote:

---

It seems to me that you think that our scientific system is complete.

---

And a hearty hey-ho for that. However, rather than dwelling on how things "seem to you", perhaps instead you might like to take the more scientific approach of reading what I wrote.

I was, you'll recall, responding to your charge that "suggesting that miracles cannot occur is by no means a scientific statement". I disagreed.

I also admitted specifically that I have no idea wehther miracles in fact have occured or do occur. I'll now say that it doesn't "seem to me" that miracles occur, but I'm happy to admit that my "beliefs" are as valueless in that regard as everyone else's .

Tableist astutely wrote of my argument (in the other debate I referred to above), that it may be a largely "semantic" point I'm making. I agree, but it's one which satisfies both a theological and a scientific perspective:

A theologian would say "Loaves and fishes! It cannot be, and yet it is! Ergo: it's a miracle!".

A scientist would say: "Loaves and Fishes? It cannot be! Ergo, in the absence of evidence, the claim must be rejected."

Again, I simply note that if an event CAN be explained scientifically, then it wouldn't be a "miracle". That's surely something both the theologian and the scientist would agree on .

Davdoodles
XXX

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regards to whether it was a miracle or not - you know nothing. You only presume, and with no strong ground since you do not even know what happened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Exactly. How can I do anything but presume if I know nothing? Hopefully Cedric will get his act together and give us some material. I think somebody may have told him that being mysterious makes him attractive. Maybe it does, but let's just cross our fingers this time.

---

Ok, a bit of a lesson in epistemology. You insist on empirical evidence, yet in your mind you have already decided that I have never witnessed a miracle or an event tending towards the miraculous (highly improbable). This is very bad epistemology.
Now, as for the universal evidence. In having a fosteriori, personal evidence, you have "second-hand" knowledge of these miraculous events. You can then decide to take it as axiomatic; am I lying or am I telling the truth. You can suggest that I'm lying, but this does not prevent myself from having a posteriori knowledge of the existence of God. If I were you, I'd get yourself down to a pentacostal (ie a church that follows the doctorines of the original day of pentacost) and find out for yourself. It's no use being a whinging empiricist if your not undertaking any scientific experiments yourself. You may want to get some equipment to measure the rate of respiration and specific hormone secretion rates at the time of the occurence and even get hold of a brand spankin' new lie detector.

I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short. -Blaise Pascal

Davdoodles,

Okay, let's check what you posted earlier. You quite succinctly stated, "A miracle, by definition, cannot occur." Both of those definitions that you provided suggested nothing of the sort. The key words to watch out for here are highlighted in bold:

Specifically: An event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature; a supernatural event, or one transcending the ordinary laws by which the universe is governed

An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God...

You disagreed and suggested that miracles cannot occur, but you provided near enough no grounding for it. Empiricism, which is quite closely to what science represents. That is, science is based on observation and of what happens in a controlled environment. It makes no absolutes, and it is largely based on induction. Induction, as you will know, makes the milder claim that things are only not probable to happen, not that they cannot happen. I have met many scientists in my day, and never have I met one who attempted to propound on the claim that the scientific system is complete. Or, that there is any reason to suggest that it ever will be.

Popper, one of the most profilic persons in philosophy of science, provided a criterion of demarcation that is largely adhered to by the whole scientific community. "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." That is, among other reasons, why absolute shave no place in science.

Again, I simply note that if an event CAN be explained scientifically, then it wouldn't be a "miracle".

A miracle is simply something that defies the current laws of science. It may well be able to be explained in the future, but at the moment, it cannot be explained.

A theologian would say "Loaves and fishes! It cannot be, and yet it is! Ergo: it's a miracle!".
A scientist would say: "Loaves and Fishes? It cannot be! Ergo, in the absence of evidence, the claim must be rejected."

There seems to be a difference in knowledge here. If the theologian knows that it happened, then so that this is a fair depiction of the characteristics, you should also grant the scientist with the same information. Furthermore, science often is in dispute.

Quantum Theory and Relativity, both two of the most accurate theories are problematic when placed with each other. One says that something cannot happen while one suggests quite to the contrary.

Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee.~ Immanuel Kant
Dos moi pou sto kai kino taen gaen. ~Archimedes

quote:

---

Ok, a bit of a lesson in epistemology. You insist on empirical evidence, yet in your mind you have already decided that I have never witnessed a miracle or an event tending towards the miraculous

---

Yet in your own mind, you have decided that miraculous events took place. The thing is, Cedric, these so called miraculous events could probably be explained by the empirical evidence I speak of (although I wouldn't know because you won't bloody tell me).

If you can describe an event that took place that could have in no way been achieved through scientific terms, you will impress me. But then, as you say, I would have to decide whether you are lying or not.

I am not a believer in miracles, so yes, I have decided that what you saw were not miracles, i'm at least guilty of that. I'm already fully aware that what I do or do not say has absolutely no effect on your poseriori knowledge of God, but earlier you said...

quote:

---

There is nothing blind about a posteriori revelation.

---

Well then that depends on what exactly happened and, if this revelation can be explained through empirical evidence but instead you call it a revelation, then to me, it's blind faith.

quote:

---

A miracle is simply something that defies the current laws of science. It may well be able to be explained in the future, but at the moment, it cannot be explained.

---

Too late to change your mind now, just because you don't like the other, more pesky part of the definitions: "...a supernatural event or one transcending the ordinary laws by which the universe is governed,... ...An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God..."

I'm not complaining though. For a moment there I thought you'd start arguing that miracles are the work of Faeries or God or something. Whew!

Nevertheless, it is a problem for your analysis.

You see, you are assuming the the bulk of the problem away. Remember, here we are talking about whether such a thing CAN or CANNOT occur.

I don't deny that a scentifically inexplicable event can occur, and that scientists would then exercise their minds about how that thing might have happened.

What I do not concede is that an event can occur which is so weird that it will instill in those scentists an agreed position that the event was "an act of god" or something of "supernatural origin".

And I certainly do not concede that an event "transcending the ordinary laws by which the universe is governed" can occur.

quote:

---

...If the theologian knows that it happened, then so that this is a fair depiction of the characteristics, you should also grant the scientist with the same information.

---

Neither the Theologian nor the Scientist were present at the "miracle" of the Loaves and Fishes, and yet the former "knows" that it occured and the latter "knows" no such thing. You want to hypothesize different scenarios? Be my guest.

Davdoodles
XXX

[This message was edited by Davdoodles on 03-11-04 at 01:37 AM.]

Would you define an event of 'returning from the dead' as transcending the ordinary laws by which the universe is goverened?

quote:

---

What I do not concede is that an event can occur which is so weird that it will instill in those scentists an agreed position that the event was "an act of god" or something of "supernatural origin".

---

Who do you speak for?

I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short. -Blaise Pascal

Mr. Dav may I suggest that you read Quine's essay The Two Dogma's of Empiricism. It may add some new ideas to your argument. Because essentially this debate is about the nature of reinterpretive and synonmous analytical statements. As to your logical positivistic position.

See: analytic and synthentic a priori statements.

"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein
"[A]nd language is our biggest adversary"

[This message was edited by Ladon on 03-11-04 at 01:31 PM.]